English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background  Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery is standard of care in many centres and it is commonly associated with the need for cardiopulmonary bypass. Conventional external aortic clamping (exoclamping) is not always feasible, so endoaortic clamping (endoclamping) has evolved as a viable alternative. The aim of this study is to compare endoclamping (Intraclude ™ , Edwards Lifesciences) with exoclamping (Chitwood) during minimally invasive mitral valve procedures.    Methods  This single-centre study included 822 consecutive patients undergoing minimally invasive mitral valve procedures. The endoclamp was used in 64 patients and the exoclamp in 758. Propensity-score (PS) matching was performed resulting in 63 patients per group. Outcome measures included procedural variables, length of intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital stay, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) and repeat surgery.    Results  The mean age was similar in the two group (62.2 [endoclamp] vs. 63.5 [exoclamp] years;  p  = 0.554), as were the cardiopulmonary bypass (145 vs. 156 min;  p  = 0.707) and the procedure time (203 vs. 211 min;  p  = 0.648). The X-clamp time was significantly shorter in the endoclamp group (88 vs. 99 min;  p  = 0.042). Length of ICU stay (25.0 vs. 23.0 h) and length of hospital stay (10.0 vs. 9.0 days) were slightly longer in the endoclamp group, but without statistical significance. There were nominal but no statistically significant differences between the groups in the rates of stroke, vascular complications, myocardial infarction or repeat mitral valve surgery. The conversion rate to open sternotomy approach was 2.4% without difference between groups. The estimated 7-year survival rate was similar for both groups (89.9% [endoclamp]; 84.0% [exoclamp]) with a hazard ratio of 1.291 (95% CI 0.453–3.680).    Conclusions  Endoaortic clamping is an appropriate and reasonably safe alternative to the conventional Chitwood exoclamp for patients in which the exoclamp cannot be used because the ascending aorta cannot be safely mobilised.

journal of cardiothoracic surgery

Long-term results of endoclamping in patients undergoing minimally invasive mitral valve surgery where external aortic clamping cannot be used – a propensity matched analysis