Abstract

Background:

Minimally invasive cardiac surgery (MICS) offers several advantages that can be particularly beneficial for older patients. However, nothing is currently known about the impact of MICS on myocardial protection. Thus, this study aimed to compare myocardial protection in valve surgery between patients who received MICS and those who underwent conventional open cardiac surgery (OPEN).

Methods:

We retrospectively included all adult patients (≥18 years) who received elective or urgent valve surgery in our department. We compared the peak value and area under the curve (AUC) of the high-sensitive troponin T (TnT) and creatine kinase muscle-brain type (CK-MB) concentrations during the first, second, and third 24 h period and the cumulative catecholamine dosages of adrenaline, noradrenaline, and enoximone at 72 h after removal of the aortic cross-clamp in patients who received valve replacement or reconstruction for MICS versus OPEN.

Results:

The peak TnT release in the first (p = 0.025) and second 24 h interval (p = 0.046), as well as the TnT AUC in the first 24 h (p = 0.024), were lower in the MICS group with reconstruction. The peak CK-MB release was relevantly lower in the first (p = 0.093) and third 24 h period (p = 0.067), as well as the CK-MB AUC between 48 and 72 h (p = 0.055). However, the peak release and AUC for TnT and CK-MB did not differ between MICS and OPEN in the replacement population. The noradrenaline dosage was lower (p = 0.023) for MICS in the replacement population. In the reconstruction population, the dosage of adrenaline (p = 0.036), noradrenaline (p = 0.043), and enoximone (p = 0.012) was lower in the MICS group than in the OPEN group.

Conclusion:

In addition to known factors of myocardial protection, such as ischemia time and cardioplegia, MICS seems to promote improved myocardial protection during valve reconstruction, while the postoperative catecholamine requirement is reduced after valve reconstruction and replacement. These additional benefits of MICS might be especially advantageous for old and frail patients undergoing cardiac surgery.

1. Introduction

Minimally invasive cardiac surgery (MICS) has evolved continuously and gained popularity within the last two to three decades [1]. MICS is associated with numerous advantages, such as less postoperative respiratory dysfunction, avoidance of chest instability, reduced incidence of deep sternal wound infection, and quicker mobilization of the patient compared to conventional open heart surgery (OPEN) [1]. MICS can be performed for valve surgery [2, 3, 4], coronary artery bypass grafting [5], and, to a certain extent, even when rarely performed, on the aorta [6].

The mean age of patients in cardiac surgery slowly increases [7]. Old age is often associated with a certain degree of frailty, meaning the patient is less resilient against stressors such as a major surgical intervention [8]. Considering this, MICS could become even more important in the future. Despite the mentioned benefits, myocardial protection during MICS is highly important to ensure that the heart can maintain circulation in the body after surgery. Based on the limited surgical access, MICS procedures commonly require longer aortic cross-clamping times and thus, longer periods of myocardial ischemia. Myocardial protection is therefore crucial in MICS. The literature shows that the existing studies compared different cardioplegic solutions for myocardial protection during MICS, including blood cardioplegia, Histidine-Tryptophane-Ketoglutarate (HTK), del Nido solution, and St. Thomas Hospital solution [9]. However, currently, nothing is known about the impact of the MICS procedure on myocardial protection independent of the cardioplegic solution. Thus, we compared myocardial protection in valve surgery in patients who received MICS compared to OPEN.

2. Patients and Methods
2.1 Patient Population

We retrospectively included all adult (18 years) patients who received elective or urgent (within 24 h of diagnosis) valve surgery for single or multiple heart valve disease in our department, which is a tertiary care center with a volume of ca. 100 valve cases per year. Patients operated between 2015 and 2022 were included. All patients were operated by an experienced surgeon. We excluded all patients who received coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or other heart or vascular surgery procedures in addition to valve surgery. Cases that included CABG were excluded because coronary heart disease limits cardioplegic perfusion of the myocardium and could, therefore, lead to a bias in results. We also excluded reoperations. Catheter-based valve replacement or clipping, procedures on the beating heart, emergency cases, and cases with the onset of the operation under resuscitation were excluded. We compared patients who received MICS to those who received OPEN. We analyzed valve replacement and reconstruction separately.

2.2 Cardioplegia

The type of cardioplegia was used based on the surgeon’s preference. Crystalloid HTK (Dr. Franz Köhler Chemie, Bensheim, Germany), as well as Buckberg (Dr. Franz Köhler Chemie, Bensheim, Germany), or Calafiore blood cardioplegia, was used. All types of cardioplegia were administered in antegrade fashion using a roller pump (Liva Nova S5, Munich, Germany) with a pump flow of 200–300 mL/min. For the HTK solution, the myocardium was perfused with an initial volume of 2000 mL of cardioplegia. A second dosage was given after 2–3 h of cardioplegic arrest. In the case of Calafiore blood cardioplegia, cardioplegic arrest was induced with a perfusor rate of 250 mL/h to add the KCl and MgCl2 mixture over 2 min. Additional dosages were given every 20 min with a perfusion rate of 150 mL/min over 2 min. In the case of Buckberg cardioplegia, a 4:1 mixture of oxygenated blood and crystalloid cardioplegic solution was given over 4 min. Additional dosages were given every 20 min over 2 min.

2.3 Postoperative Hemodynamic Stabilization

The postoperative hemodynamic stabilization was achieved using a catecholamine regimen according to the patient’s needs. Adrenaline, noradrenaline, and enoximone were given depending on the patient’s requirements.

2.4 Endpoints

The study endpoints were the peak value and area under the curve (AUC) of highly sensitive troponin T (TnT) and creatine kinase muscle brain-type (CK-MB) during 0–24 h, 24–48 h, and 48–72 h after removal of the aortic cross-clamp. The regimen of cardiac enzyme measurement changed over the observation period. Thus, TnT and CK-MB information were unfortunately not always available for every patient at every time point. We determined the cumulative dosage of the catecholamines adrenaline, noradrenaline, and enoximone.

2.5 Calculation of the Area Under the Curve

For the three catecholamines, the total dose applied in the first 72 h after the cross-clamp removal was calculated for each agent. Therefore, the individual dose of each application was calculated by multiplying the concentration, volume applied, and duration of the application. The doses of individual applications were then cumulated.

For the cardiac enzymes TnT and CK-MB, the AUC was calculated for three consecutive 24-hour intervals after the end of the cross-clamp time to approximate the total amount secreted in each interval. Therefore, the AUC was calculated for each pair of consecutive data points within each 24-hour interval, assuming a linear behavior. These small areas were then summed up to calculate the total area under the curve. Due to the study’s retrospective nature, often no data points exist at exactly 0 h, 24 h, 48 h, or 72 h. Consequently, in these cases, the value of the closest existing data point within the respective interval next to the timepoint of 0 h, 24 h, 48 h, or 72 h was included in the analysis as the value for 0 h, 24 h, 48 h, or 72 h.

2.6 Statistics

The statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics (Version 28.0.0.0, IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). We performed a linear regression analysis to compare the groups, including an adjustment of the group difference based on age, sex, time of aortic cross-clamping, reperfusion time between removal of the aortic cross-clamp and weaning from cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB), single or multiple valve surgery, preoperative ventricular function categorized in normal (ejection fraction >50%), reduced (ejection fraction 30–50%) or majorly reduced (ejection fraction <30%) or missing, New York Heart Association (NYHA) class categorized in NYHA I, II, III, IV or missing (e.g., in case of endocarditis when no NYHA category was determined) and type of cardioplegia. Besides the outcome measures, the patient populations were compared using a χ2 test for categorical data or a two-tailed unpaired classical t-test for variance homogeneity and a Welch t-test for variance inhomogeneity. Based on the explorative, hypothesis-generating nature of this retrospective study, p-values were also interpreted exploratively, meaning that small p-values suggested an important group difference.

3. Results
3.1 Patients

In the replacement population, the NYHA status, left-ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), cardioplegia, number of operated valves, urgency, and the prevalence of smoking and diabetes differed between the MICS and the OPEN group (Table 1). In the MICS group, HTK was more frequently used, and surgery on one isolated valve was more prevalent. Endocarditis was more prevalent in the OPEN group compared to the MICS group. Aortic cross-clamp, reperfusion, and total operating time were longer in the OPEN group than in MICS. Days spent in the intensive care unit (ICU) and ventilation hours were also more in the OPEN group. More blood products were also transfused in patients who received open cardiac surgery.

Table 1. Basic characteristics of the replacement population.
Parameter Category Patients with analyzed TnT Patients with analyzed CK-MB Patients with analyzed Catecholamines
MICS OPEN p-value MICS OPEN p-value MICS OPEN p-value
Sex Male 133 (62.7%) 252 (63.2%) 0.918 130 (63.4%) 243 (63.1%) 0.943 134 (62.6%) 254 (62.6%) 0.989
Female 79 (37.3%) 147 (36.8%) 75 (36.6%) 142 (36.9%) 80 (37.4%) 152 (37.4%)
Age 65.9 ± 0.7 66.6 ± 0.5 0.419 65.9 ± 0.7 67.0 ± 0.5 0.207 65.8 ± 0.7 66.7 ± 0.5 0.325
Height (cm) 171.3 ± 0.7 171.0 ± 0.5 0.738 171.3 ± 0.7 171.0 ± 0.5 0.714 171.3 ± 0.7 170.9 ± 0.5 0.676
Weight (kg) 86.5 ± 1.2 85.1 ± 1.0 0.368 86.5 ± 1.2 85.2 ± 1.0 0.414 86.5 ± 1.2 85.0 ± 1.0 0.356
BMI 29.5 ± 0.4 29.1 ± 0.3 0.389 29.5 ± 0.4 29.1 ± 0.3 0.441 29.5 ± 0.4 29.1 ± 0.3 0.402
NYHA NYHA I 14 (6.6%) 19 (4.8%) 0.001 14 (6.8%) 19 (4.9%) 0.005 14 (6.5%) 19 (4.7%) <0.001
NYHA II 85 (40.1%) 138 (34.6%) 84 (41.0%) 136 (35.3%) 85 (39.7%) 140 (34.5%)
NYHA III 107 (50.5%) 192 (48.1%) 101 (49.3%) 186 (48.3%) 109 (50.9%) 194 (47.8%)
NYHA IV 6 (2.8%) 31 (7.8%) 6 (2.9%) 28 (7.3%) 6 (2.8%) 34 (8.4%)
Unknown 0 (0.0%) 19 (4.8%) 0 (0.0%) 16 (4.2%) 0 (0.1%) 19 (4.7%)
LVEF >50% 157 (74.1%) 239 (59.9%) 0.001 152 (74.1%) 234 (60.8%) 0.003 158 (73.8%) 245 (60.3%) 0.002
30–50% 50 (23.6%) 127 (31.8%) 48 (23.4%) 119 (30.9%) 51 (23.8%) 127 (31.3%)
<30% 3 (1.4%) 24 (6.0%) 3 (1.5%) 23 (6.0%) 3 (1.4%) 25 (6.2%)
Unknown 2 (0.9%) 9 (2.3%) 2 (1.0%) 9 (2.3%) 2 (0.9%) 9 (2.2%)
Hypertension Yes 177 (83.5%) 314 (78.7%) 0.061 173 (84.4%) 310 (80.5%) 0.083 178 (83.2%) 319 (78.6%) 0.065
No 31 (14.6%) 61 (15.3%) 28 (13.7%) 52 (13.5%) 32 (15.0%) 63 (15.5%)
Unknown 4 (1.9%) 24 (6.0%) 4 (2.0%) 23 (6.0%) 4 (1.9%) 24 (5.9%)
Smoker Never 93 (43.9%) 132 (33.1%) <0.001 89 (43.4%) 124 (32.2%) <0.001 95 (44.4%) 136 (33.5%) <0.001
>2 months ago 54 (25.5%) 86 (21.6%) 53 (25.9%) 85 (22.1%) 54 (25.2%) 86 (21.2%)
Within 2 months 26 (12.3%) 47 (11.8%) 25 (12.2%) 45 (11.7%) 26 (12.1%) 47 (11.6%)
Unknown 39 (18.4%) 134 (33.6%) 38 (18.5%) 131 (34.0%) 39 (18.2%) 137 (33.7%)
COPD Yes 17 (8.0%) 43 (10.8%) 0.060 15 (7.3%) 43 (11.2%) 0.046 17 (7.9%) 43 (10.6%) 0.064
No 182 (85.8%) 321 (80.5%) 177 (86.3%) 308 (80.0%) 184 (86.0%) 328 (80.8%)
Other lung disease 13 (6.1%) 24 (6.0%) 13 (6.3%) 24 (6.2%) 13 (6.1%) 24 (5.9%)
Unknown 0 (0.0%) 11 (2.8%) 0 (0.0%) 10 (2.6%) 0 (0.0%) 11 (2.7%)
Diabetes Yes 68 (32.1%) 127 (31.8%) 0.007 64 (31.2%) 123 (31.9%) 0.006 68 (31.8%) 129 (31.8%) 0.007
No 144 (67.9%) 254 (63.7%) 141 (68.8%) 244 (63.4%) 146 (68.2%) 259 (63.8%)
Unknown 0 (0.0%) 18 (4.5%) 0 (0.0%) 18 (4.7%) 0 (0.0%) 18 (4.4%)
Endocarditis Yes 15 (7.1%) 127 (31.8%) <0.001 15 (7.3%) 123 (31.9%) <0.001 15 (7.0%) 128 (31.5%) <0.001
No 197 (92.9%) 272 (68.2%) 190 (92.7%) 262 (68.1%) 199 (93.0%) 278 (68.5%)
Cardioplegia HTK 177 (83.5%) 252 (63.2%) <0.001 176 (85.9%) 249 (64.7%) <0.001 178 (83.2%) 254 (62.6%) <0.001
Calafiore 32 (15.1%) 82 (20.6%) 26 (12.7%) 72 (18.7%) 32 (15.0%) 87 (21.4%)
Buckberg 3 (1.4%) 65 (16.3%) 3 (1.5%) 64 (16.6%) 4 (1.9%) 65 (16.0%)
Valve number Single 212 (100.0%) 345 (86.5%) <0.001 205 (100.0%) 331 (86.0%) <0.001 214 (100.0%) 350 (86.2%) <0.001
Multiple 0 (0.0%) 54 (13.5%) 0 (0.0%) 54 (14.0%) 0 (0.0%) 56 (13.8%)
Replacement type Biological 206 (97.2%) 336 (97.4%) 0.875 199 (97.1%) 324 (97.9%) 0.553 208 (97.2%) 341 (97.4%) 0.868
Mechanical 6 (2.8%) 9 (2.6%) 6 (2.9%) 7 (2.1%) 6 (2.8%) 9 (2.6%)
Urgency Urgent 33 (15.6%) 171 (42.9%) <0.001 33 (16.1%) 169 (43.9%) <0.001 33 (15.4%) 173 (42.6%) <0.001
Elective 179 (84.4%) 228 (57.1%) 172 (83.9%) 216 (56.1%) 181 (84.6%) 233 (57.4%)
Clamp time (min) 79.9 ± 1.7 90.1 ± 2.3 <0.001 80.3 ± 1.8 90.7 ± 2.4 <0.001 79.8 ± 1.7 90.5 ± 2.3 <0.001
Reperfusion time (min) 23.4 ± 1.4 27.6 ± 1.2 0.023 23.6 ± 1.5 27.8 ± 1.2 0.270 23.3 ± 1.4 27.9 ± 1.2 0.012
Operating time (h) 197.0 ± 3.7 218.1 ± 5.0 <0.001 198.0 ± 3.8 219.1 ± 5.2 0.001 196.6 ± 3.7 218.8 ± 5.0 <0.001
Days in ICU 5.0 ± 0.5 9.9 ± 0.6 <0.001 5.0 ± 0.5 10.0 ± 0.6 <0.001 5.0 ± 0.5 9.8 ± 0.6 <0.001
Days in hospital 11.0 ± 0.4 13.3 ± 0.5 <0.001 10.9 ± 0.4 13.3 ± 0.5 <0.001 11.0 ± 0.4 13.3 ± 0.5 <0.001
Ventilation hours 34.6 ± 7.5 87.5 ± 8.1 <0.001 35.4 ± 7.7 86.2 ± 8.0 <0.001 34.5 ± 7.5 86.7 ± 8.0 <0.001
pRBC units 2.2 ± 0.3 6.1 ± 0.5 <0.001 2.2 ± 0.3 6.2 ± 0.5 <0.001 2.2 ± 0.3 6.0 ± 0.5 <0.001
Platelets Units 1.1 ± 0.3 4.0 ± 0.4 <0.001 1.2 ± 0.3 4.0 ± 0.5 <0.001 1.1 ± 0.3 3.9 ± 0.4 <0.001
FFP Units 0.2 ± 0.1 1.1 ± 0.1 <0.001 0.2 ± 0.1 1.1 ± 0.1 <0.001 0.2 ± 0.1 1.1 ± 0.1 <0.001

BMI, Body Mass Index; FFP, Fresh frozen plasma; HTK, Histidine-Tryptophan-Ketoglutarate; ICU, Intensive care unit; LVEF, Left-ventricular ejection fraction; NYHA, New York Heart Association; CK-MB, Creatinekinase muscle brain type; COPD, Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; MICS, Minimally-invasive cardiac surgery; pRBC, Packed red blood cells; TnT, High-sensitive troponin T; OPEN, open heart surgery.

In the reconstruction population, body weight and Body Mass Index (BMI) were higher in OPEN (Table 2). Diabetes was also more prevalent in this group. HTK was also more often used than blood cardioplegia in the MICS group. Cross-clamp and operation times were longer in MICS. However, MICS patients spent less time in the ICU and were mechanically ventilated for a shorter time than the OPEN patients. Again, more blood products were used in OPEN. However, in both populations, reconstruction and replacement, the outcome parameters were adjusted to relevant confounders.

Table 2. Basic characteristics of the reconstruction population.
Parameter Category TnT CK-MB Catecholamines
MICS OPEN p-value MICS OPEN p-value MICS OPEN p-value
Sex Male 49 (65.3%) 34 (66.7%) 0.877 49 (65.3%) 30 (63.8%) 0.866 49 (65.3%) 34 (66.7%) 0.877
Female 26 (34.7%) 17 (33.3%) 26 (34.7%) 17 (36.2%) 26 (34.7%) 17 (33.3%)
Age 59.8 ± 1.7 64.4 ± 1.6 0.050 59.8 ± 1.7 64.9 ± 1.7 0.034 59.8 ± 1.7 64.4 ± 1.6 0.050
Height (cm) 173.9 ± 1.1 171.8 ± 1.3 0.211 173.9 ± 1.1 171.4 ± 1.4 0.161 173.9 ± 1.1 171.8 ± 1.3 0.211
Weight (kg) 76.1 ± 1.6 85.7 ± 2.7 0.003 76.1 ± 1.6 85.7 ± 2.9 0.005 76.1 ± 1.6 85.7 ± 2.7 0.001
BMI 25.0 ± 0.4 29.0 ± 0.8 <0.001 25.0 ± 0.4 29.1 ± 0.9 <0.001 25.0 ± 0.4 29.0 ± 0.8 <0.001
NYHA NYHA I 9 (12.0%) 2 (3.9%) 0.067 9 (12.0%) 2 (4.3%) 0.085 9 (12.0%) 2 (3.9%) 0.067
NYHA II 33 (44.0%) 15 (29.4%) 33 (44.0%) 15 (31.9%) 33 (44.0%) 15 (29.4%)
NYHA III 26 (34.7%) 24 (47.1%) 26 (34.7%) 23 (48.9%) 26 (34.7%) 24 (47.1%)
NYHA IV 3 (4.0%) 7 (13.7%) 3 (4.0%) 6 (12.8%) 3 (4.0%) 7 (13.7%)
Unknown 4 (5.3%) 3 (5.9%) 4 (5.3%) 1 (2.1%) 4 (5.3%) 3 (5.9%)
LVEF >50% 55 (73.3%) 31 (60.8%) 0.122 55 (73.3%) 29 (61.7%) 0.124 55 (73.3%) 31 (60.8%) 0.122
30–50% 18 (24.0%) 16 (31.4%) 18 (24.0%) 14 (29.8%) 18 (24.0%) 16 (31.4%)
<30% 0 (0.0%) 3 (5.9%) 0 (0.0%) 3 (6.4%) 0 (0.0%) 3 (5.9%)
Unknown 2 (2.7%) 1 (2.0%) 2 (2.7%) 1 (2.1%) 2 (2.7%) 1 (2.0%)
Hypertension Yes 60 (80.0%) 34 (66.7%) 0.074 60 (80.0%) 32 (68.1%) 0.055 60 (80.0%) 34 (66.7%) 0.074
No 11 (14.7%) 8 (15.7%) 11 (14.7%) 6 (12.8%) 11 (14.7%) 8 (15.7%)
Unknown 4 (5.3%) 9 (17.6%) 4 (5.3%) 9 (19.1%) 4 (5.3%) 9 (17.6%)
Smoker Never 36 (48.0%) 17 (33.3%) 0.433 36 (48.0%) 14 (29.8%) 0.248 36 (48.0%) 17 (33.3%) 0.433
>2 months ago 15 (20.0%) 14 (27.5%) 15 (20.0%) 14 (29.8%) 15 (20.0%) 14 (27.5%)
Within 2 months 7 (9.3%) 6 (11.7%) 7 (9.3%) 5 (10.6%) 7 (9.3%) 6 (11.8%)
Unknown 17 (22.7%) 14 (27.5%) 17 (22.7%) 14 (29.8%) 17 (22.7%) 14 (27.5%)
COPD Yes 4 (5.3%) 10 (19.6%) 0.098 4 (5.3%) 10 (21.3%) 0.064 4 (5.3%) 10 (19.6%) 0.098
No 60 (80.0%) 35 (68.6%) 60 (80.0%) 31 (66.0%) 60 (80.0%) 35 (68.6%)
Other lung disease 7 (9.3%) 4 (7.8%) 7 (9.3%) 4 (8.5%) 7 (9.3%) 4 (7.8%)
Unknown 4 (5.4%) 2 (4.0%) 4 (5.3%) 2 (4.3%) 4 (5.3%) 2 (3.9%)
Diabetes Yes 4 (5.3%) 11 (21.6%) 0.012 4 (5.3%) 11 (23.4%) 0.006 4 (5.3%) 11 (21.6%) 0.012
No 69 (92.0%) 37 (72.5%) 69 (92.0%) 33 (70.2%) 69 (92.0%) 37 (72.5%)
Unknown 2 (2.7%) 3 (5.9%) 2 (2.7%) 3 (6.4%) 2 (2.7%) 3 (5.9%)
Endocarditis Yes 2 (2.7%) 5 (9.8%) 0.086 2 (2.7%) 5 (10.6%) 0.065 2 (2.7%) 5 (9.8%) 0.086
No 73 (97.3%) 46 (90.2%) 73 (97.3%) 42 (89.4%) 73 (97.3%) 46 (90.2%)
Cardioplegia HTK 72 (96.0%) 39 (76.5%) 0.002 72 (96.0%) 38 (80.9%) 0.011 72 (96.0%) 39 (76.5%) 0.002
Calafiore 3 (4.0%) 7 (13.7%) 3 (4.0%) 5 (10.6%) 3 (4.0%) 7 (13.7%)
Buckberg 0 (0.0%) 5 (9.8%) 0 (0.0%) 4 (8.5%) 0 (0.0%) 5 (9.8%)
Valve number Single 66 (88.0%) 44 (86.3%) 0.775 66 (88.0%) 40 (85.1%) 0.645 66 (88.0%) 44 (86.3%) 0.775
Multiple 9 (12.0%) 7 (13.7%) 9 (12.0%) 7 (14.9%) 9 (12.0%) 7 (13.7%)
Urgency Urgent 9 (12.0%) 13 (25.5%) 0.050 9 (12.0%) 13 (27.7%) 0.029 9 (12.0%) 13 (25.5%) 0.050
Elective 66 (88.0%) 38 (74.5%) 66 (88.0%) 34 (72.3%) 66 (88.0%) 38 (74.5%)
Clamp time (min) 118.4 ± 4.0 85.4 ± 4.7 <0.001 118.4 ± 4.0 87.0 ± 4.9 <0.001 118.4 ± 4.0 85.1 ± 4.7 <0.001
Reperfusion time (min) 40.2 ± 2.9 32.0 ± 3.6 0.074 40.2 ± 2.9 33.0 ± 3.8 0.128 40.2 ± 2.9 32.0 ± 3.6 0.074
Operating time (h) 267.6 ± 5.4 223.7 ± 10.5 <0.001 267.6 ± 5.4 229.5 ± 10.8 <0.001 267.6 ± 5.4 223.7 ± 10.5 <0.001
Days in ICU 5.5 ± 0.6 9.3 ± 1.6 0.030 5.5 ± 0.6 9.8 ± 1.7 0.021 5.5 ± 0.6 9.3 ± 1.6 0.030
Days in hospital 11.5 ± 0.6 11.6 ± 0.7 0.921 11.5 ± 0.6 11.4 ± 0.8 0.949 11.5 ± 0.6 11.6 ± 0.7 0.921
Ventilation hours 40.1 ± 11.5 112.3 ± 31.3 0.034 40.1 ± 11.5 120.5 ± 33.7 0.028 40.1 ± 11.5 112.3 ± 31.3 0.034
pRBC units 2.3 ± 0.5 7.2 ± 2.2 0.032 2.3 ± 0.5 7.7 ± 2.3 0.027 2.3 ± 0.5 7.2 ± 2.2 0.032
Platelets Units 1.6 ± 0.5 7.3 ± 2.5 0.031 1.6 ± 0.5 7.9 ± 2.7 0.026 1.6 ± 0.5 7.3 ± 2.5 0.031
FFP Units 0.5 ± 0.1 1.8 ± 0.6 0.043 0.5 ± 0.1 2.0 ± 0.7 0.036 0.5 ± 0.1 1.8 ± 0.6 0.043

BMI, Body Mass Index; FFP, Fresh frozen plasma; HTK, Histidine-Tryptophan-Ketoglutarate; ICU, Intensive care unit; LVEF, Left-ventricular ejection fraction; NYHA, New York Heart Association; CK-MB, Creatinekinase muscle brain type; COPD, Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; MICS, Minimally-invasive cardiac surgery; pRBC, Packed red blood cells; TnT, High-sensitive troponin T.

3.2 Outcomes

The adjusted noradrenaline dosage was relevantly lower (adj. difference: –22.3 mg; p = 0.023) in the MICS group in the replacement population (Table 3). However, the adjusted release of TnT and CK-MB was not relevantly different. In the reconstruction population, the adjusted adrenaline (adj. difference: –14.2 mg; p = 0.036), noradrenaline (adj. difference: –46.8 mg; p = 0.043), and enoximone (adj. difference: –130.5 mg; p = 0.012) dosages were lower in the MICS group than in the OPEN group (Table 4). Considering the adjusted differences in all catecholamines, this result is clinically meaningful. The adjusted peak TnT release in the first 24 h (adj. difference: –845.4 ng/L; p = 0.025) and between 24 and 48 h (adj. difference: –631.9 ng/L; p = 0.046) after the onset of myocardial reperfusion and the adjusted TnT AUC (adj. difference: –15,183.3 (ng/L)*h); p = 0.024) were lower, and according to the absolute difference of release of clinical importance in the MICS group (Table 4). The adjusted peak CK-MB release was relevantly lower (adj. difference: –0.6 µkat/L) in the first 24 h and between 48 and 72 h, as well as the adjusted CK-MB AUC between 48 and 72 h after removal of the cross-clamp. A summary of the results is shown in Fig. 1.

Table 3. Outcomes in the replacement group.
TnT
Timepoint Type of surgery unadjusted adjusted
MICS OPEN Difference p-value 95% CI Difference p-value 95% CI
low high low high
Peak 1 (ng/L) 1274.9 ± 477.2 1184.9 ± 84.4 90.0 0.806 –628.2 808.1 143.3 0.719 –638.1 924.6
n = 211 n = 399
Peak 2 (ng/L) 927.1 ± 489.1 898.8 ± 77.3 28.3 0.939 –698.4 755.0 153.2 0.705 –641.8 948.3
n = 205 n = 390
Peak 3 (ng/L) 983.8 ± 584.6 718.4 ± 61.5 265.4 0.525 –554.0 1084.8 371.6 0.423 –539.7 1283.0
n = 171 n = 351
AUC 1 ((ng/L)*h) 23,919.2 ± 10,572.6 21,267.6 ± 1442.2 2651.6 0.738 –12,931.3 18,234.9 3814.5 0.661 –13,265.4 20,894.4
n = 211 n = 399
AUC 2 ((ng/L)*h) 21,857.5 ± 11,732.8 20,180.3 ± 1595.7 1677.1 0.849 –15,567.5 18,921.7 4704.7 0.626 –14,231.1 23,640.6
n = 205 n = 390
AUC 3 ((ng/L)*h) 15,170.4 ± 5900.1 17,069.1 ± 1458.6 –1898.7 0.681 –10,964.7 7167.3 1013.2 0.839 –8794.4 10,820.8
n = 171 n = 351
CK-MB
Peak 1 (µkat/L) 1.9 ± 0.6 1.4 ± 0.2 0.5 0.411 –0.7 1.7 0.6 0.290 –0.5 1.7
n = 202 n = 381
Peak 2 (µkat/L) 0.6 ± 0.1 0.9 ± 0.1 –0.2 0.189 –0.5 0.1 –0.1 0.580 –0.4 0.2
n = 132 n = 259
Peak 3 (µkat/L) 0.4 ± 0.1 0.4 ± 0.03 0.002 0.976 –0.1 0.1 0.03 0.675 –0.1 0.1
n = 115 n = 232
AUC 1 ((µkat/L)*h) 28.0 ± 7.3 22.2 ± 1.1 5.9 0.428 –8.7 20.4 7.6 0.208 –4.2 19.4
n = 202 n = 381
AUC 2 ((µkat/L)*h) 13.5 ± 1.8 18.6 ± 2.0 –5.0 0.063 –10.6 0.3 –2.4 0.456 –8.7 3.9
n = 132 n = 259
AUC 3 ((µkat/L)*h) 9.4 ± 1.2 9.4 ± 0.6 –0.03 0.978 –2.5 2.4 0.5 0.683 –2.0 3.0
n = 115 n = 232
Catecholamines (mg)
Type of surgery unadjusted adjusted
MICS OPEN Difference p-value 95% CI Difference p-value 95% CI
n = 214 n = 406 low high low high
Adrenaline 1.1 ± 0.6 5.1 ± 0.9 –4.0 <0.001 –6.1 –1.9 –1.7 0.213 –4.5 1.0
Noradrenaline 7.2 ± 1.6 37.2 ± 6.5 –29.9 <0.001 –43.0 –16.8 –22.3 0.023 –41.5 –3.1
Enoximone 15.4 ± 9.6 19.1 ± 5.7 –3.8 0.361 –24.4 16.9 5.8 0.613 –16.8 28.5

Peak or AUC 1 to 3 represent the respective value in the first, second, and third 24 h period after removal of the aortic cross clamp. AUC, Area under curve; CK-MB, Creatinekinase muscle brain type; MICS, Minimally-invasive cardiac surgery; TnT, High-sensitive troponin T.

Table 4. Outcomes in the reconstruction group.
TnT
Timepoint Type of surgery unadjusted adjusted
MICS OPEN Difference p-value 95% CI Difference p-value 95% CI
low high low high
Peak 1 (ng/L) 1495.4 ± 222.8 1499.7 ± 231.4 –4.3 0.990 –659.3 650.6 –845.4 0.025 –1584.8 –106.0
n = 75 n = 51
Peak 2 (ng/L) 998.2 ± 193.1 1031.3 ± 179.3 –33.1 0.905 –580.7 514.5 –631.9 0.046 –1253.2 –10.6
n = 73 n = 50
Peak 3 (ng/L) 937.7 ± 232.2 778.6 ± 133.6 159.0 0.582 –411.8 729.9 –437.0 0.190 –1095.3 221.3
n = 56 n = 44
AUC 1 ((ng/L)*h) 26,837.5 ± 4016.2 26,854.2 ± 4136.8 –16.7 0.998 –11,788.9 11,755.4 –15,183.3 0.024 –28,330.2 2036.4
n = 75 n = 51
AUC 2 ((ng/L)*h) 22,962.2 ± 4356.3 23,305.6 ± 3845.7 –343.3 0.956 –12,526.5 11,839.8 –13,122.6 0.063 –26,946.4 701.2
n = 73 n = 50
AUC 3 ((ng/L)*h) 21,920.9 ± 5332.9 18,567.4 ± 3188.7 3353.4 0.615 –9846.1 16,553.0 –10,003.7 0.194 –25,198.9 5191.4
n = 56 n = 44
CK-MB
Peak 1 (µkat/L) 1.9 ± 0.2 1.6 ± 0.2 0.3 0.307 –0.3 1.0 –0.6 0.093 –1.2 0.1
n = 73 n = 46
Peak 2 (µkat/L) 1.0 ± 0.2 0.8 ± 0.1 0.2 0.507 –0.4 0.8 –0.4 0.240 –1.1 0.3
n = 50 n = 31
Peak 3 (µkat/L) 0.4 ± 0.04 0.5 ± 0.1 –0.1 0.363 –0.3 0.1 –0.2 0.067 –0.5 0.02
n = 42 n = 28
AuC 1 ((µkat/L)*h) 35.0 ± 4.2 28.2 ± 2.6 6.8 0.236 –4.5 18.2 –9.7 0.109 –21.5 2.2
n = 73 n = 46
AuC 2 ((µkat/L)*h) 21.4 ± 4.2 17.6 ± 3.1 3.8 0.520 –8.0 15.6 –7.8 0.260 –21.6 6.0
n = 50 n = 31
AuC 3 ((µkat/L)*h) 9.8 ± 1.1 12.3 ± 2.8 –2.5 0.350 –7.8 2.8 –6.0 0.055 –12.2 0.1
n = 42 n = 28
Catecholamines (mg)
Type of surgery unadjusted adjusted
MICS OPEN Difference p-value 95% CI Difference p-value 95% CI
n = 75 n = 51 low high low high
Adrenaline 1.1 ± 0.3 15.6 ± 7.0 –14.6 0.043 –28.7 –0.4 –14.2 0.036 –27.4 –1.0
Noradrenaline 6.2 ± 1.7 62.7 ± 22.8 –56.5 0.017 –102.4 –10.7 –46.8 0.043 –92.0 –1.5
Enoximone 9.4 ± 8.3 108.1 ± 50.8 –98.7 0.061 –202.0 4.7 –130.5 0.012 –231.5 –29.5

Peak or AUC 1 to 3 represent the respective value in the first, second, and third 24 h period after removal of the aortic cross clamp. AUC, Area under curve; CK-MB, Creatinekinase muscle brain type; MICS, Minimally-invasive cardiac surgery; TnT, High-sensitive troponin T.

Fig. 1.

Summary of results. Negative values indicate a lower release or dosage in MICS than in OPEN. MICS, Minimally-invasive cardiac surgery; TnT, High-sensitive troponin T; CK-MB, Creatinekinase muscle brain type.

4. Discussion

In this retrospective single-center comparison, we could show a decreased release of cardiac enzymes after valve reconstruction and a decreased catecholamine requirement after both valve replacement and reconstruction by MICS compared to OPEN. From this, we conclude that myocardial protection is more effective in MICS during valve surgery and is associated with a more stable hemodynamic situation for the patient after valve surgery.

4.1 Methodology

The analysis was adjusted for multiple covariates because myocardial contractility and hemodynamics also depend on various patient-specific and treatment-associated factors. Based on the literature, cardiac enzyme release depends on ischemia time, which is reflected by the aortic cross-clamping time [10]. The effects of myocardial ischemia also depend on sex [11]. During aortic cross-clamping, the myocardium is protected by the cardioplegic solution, which is also likely to affect cardiac enzyme release. Thus, cross-clamping time, sex, and cardioplegia were included as covariates. The number of operated valves affects the aortic cross-clamping time and was therefore also considered for the adjustment. The reperfusion time between removal of the aortic cross-clamp and weaning from CPB might have an effect, especially on the catecholamine dosage, and was therefore also included as a covariate. The stage of heart insufficiency and ventricular function correlates with the general state and potential resilience of the patient against certain stress, such as cardiac surgery, and was consequently also included as a covariate [12]. Although propensity score matching is often applied to create comparable populations, it has been shown by Cepeda et al. [13] that in the case of a higher number of events per confounder, which is the given reality in the present populations, regression is the more robust approach.

4.2 Outcome Measures

In the replacement population, the aortic cross-clamping time, which determines the myocardial ischemia time, was not relevantly different between MICS and OPEN. This finding was unexpected but might be based on the fact that complicated cases, such as surgery on multiple valves, are preferably operated in OPEN fashion. Consequently, more patients with multiple operated valves were included in the OPEN group.

In contrast, in the reconstruction population, the percentage of patients with single or multiple operated valves was comparable between MICS and OPEN. Thus, based on the limited operating space in MICS, the operating and ischemia time was longer than that of OPEN, as known from the literature [14]. Considering the prolonged ischemia time in the MICS population, we expected a more pronounced myocardial injury and, thus, higher cardiac enzyme release. However, the outcome measures were adjusted for this factor, and even after adjustment, the TnT release was lower and of clinical relevance in the MICS group. From this, we conclude that myocardial protection is not only time-dependent but also depends on surgical access and trauma, which is smaller and reduced in MICS. The obviously improved myocardial protection can also be a reason for the reduced postoperative catecholamine dosage in MICS, which can also be based on other secondary effects that promote stable hemodynamics after cardiac surgery. Sufficient circulation in the body based on low catecholamine requirement and short ventilation times enables early mobilization of the patient, which is especially beneficial for old and often frail patients [15].

The missing difference of cardiac enzyme release in the replacement group might be based on other factors of relevance for myocardial protection that might have overshadowed the potential protective effects of MICS. Accordingly, patients with valve replacement sometimes have a more complicated ventricular geometry that can make the surgical procedure more complicated and indirectly affect myocardial protection. In the literature, it has also been suggested that valve replacement can have a counterbeneficial effect on myocardial protection when ventricular geometry cannot be fully preserved or may have a more severe primary disease [16, 17, 18].

Other observed advantages of MICS are the shorter ICU and ventilation times and the decreased use of blood products compared to OPEN. This observation is congruent with other studies and might be based on decreased chest trauma because no median sternotomy is performed [19].

4.3 Limitations

Due to the retrospective nature of this study, not all outcome measures were available at every time point. However, we performed a commonly known mathematical approximation to minimize this limitation. We were unfortunately not able to compare the effect of different cardioplegic solutions within the subgroups due to the limited number of patients per cardioplegia.

4.4 Future Directions

Prospective studies, ideally using only one type of cardioplegia, are needed to prove the conclusions of the present retrospective study. TnT and CK-MB are clinically relevant biomarkers that correlate with clinically relevant outcomes such as arrhythmias or survival [20]. Other clinical outcomes, such as survival, ideally long-term, should also be assessed and correlated with myocardial injury markers. Additionally, further studies are needed to investigate if the improved myocardial protection also occurs in other cardiovascular surgery procedures that can also be performed minimally-invasive.

5. Conclusion

Our single-center retrospective study concludes that the surgical access seems to have an impact on myocardial protection. Therefore, MICS, compared to OPEN, shows improved myocardial protection, at least during valve reconstruction. Consequently, if possible, MICS should be preferred over OPEN in order to achieve improved myocardial protection. Additionally, MICS is associated with improved postoperative hemodynamics in valve reconstruction and replacement. Thus, this study provides novel insights into the additional benefits of MICS that might be especially in favor for old and frail patients in cardiac surgery. However, prospective studies are needed to confirm these results.

Availability of Data and Materials

Data and more information on materials are available upon reasonable request.

Author Contributions

LS and ALB performed the research. LS designed the research study, interpreted data, wrote the manuscript. ALB performed data extraction and analysis. MS assisted during data extraction. AS and GS performed critical review of the manuscript. GS and AS interpreted the results. All authors contributed to editorial changes in the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. All authors have participated sufficiently in the work and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate

The study was carried out in accordance with the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki. The institutional ethical review committee of the University Hospital Halle reviewed and approved this investigation (reference: 2022-137; approval: 05 December 2022). Due to the retrospective nature of this study, no informed consent was necessary.

Acknowledgment

Not applicable.

Funding

This project was supported by the German Research Foundation (DFG; project number 530557324; to Dr. Lars Saemann), by the Wilhelm-Roux funding program of the Medical Faculty of the Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg (to Dr. Lars Saemann), and by the Bundesminesterium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF; project Thera4Age; to Prof. Dr. Andreas Simm).

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

Publisher’s Note: IMR Press stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Cite

Share