Troca valvar aórtica minimamente invasiva: uma alternativa à técnica convencional Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement: an alternative to the conventional technique

Abstract

OBJETIVO: Demonstrar o uso da cirurgia minimamente invasiva para tratamento da valva aórtica e comparar seus resultados com o método tradicional. MÉTODOS: Entre 2006 e 2011, 60 pacientes foram submetidos à cirurgia na valva aórtica, após consentimento escrito, destes 40 pela técnica minimamente invasiva com acesso por minitoracotomia ântero-lateral direita (Grupo 1/G1)e 20 por esternotomia mediana (Grupo 2/G2). Comparamos os tempos operatórios e a evolução pós-operatória intra-hospitalar. RESULTADOS: Os tempos médios de circulação extracorpórea (CEC) e pinçamento aórtico no G1 foram, respectivamente, 142,7 ± 59,5 min e 88,6 ± 31,5 min e, no G2, 98,1 ± 39,1 min e 67,7 ± 26,2 min (POBJECTIVES: To demonstrate the use of minimally invasive surgery for aortic valve replacement and compare your results with the traditional method. METHODS: Between 2006 and 2011 sixty patients underwent surgery on aortic valve, after written consent, these 40 by minimally invasive technique with right anterior minithoracotomy access (Group 1/G1) and 20 by median sternotomy (Group 2/G2). Compare the operating times and postoperative evolution intra-hospital. RESULTS: The average times of bypass and aortic crossclamp in G1 were, respectively, 142.7 ± 59.5 min and 88.6 ± 31.5 min and, in G2, 98.1 ± 39.1 min and 67.7 ± 26.2 min (P < 0.05), a difference in medians of 39 minutes in bypass time and 23 minutes in aortic cross-clamp were observed in favour of conventional technique. The blood loss by the thoracic drains was significantly lower in the Group: minimally invasive 605.1 ± 679.5 ml (G1) versus 1617 ± 1390 ml (G2) (P < 0.05).The average time of ICU and hospital stay were shorter in G1: 2.3 ± 1.8 and 5.5 ± 5.4 days versus 5.1 ± 3.6 and 10 ± 5.1 in G2 (P < 0.05), respectively. Vasoactive drug use was also less post-operative at 12.8% in minimally invasive group G1 versus 45% in G2. CONCLUSION: Aortic valve replacement through minimally invasive techniques, although intraoperative times larger, not demonstrate affect postoperative results that this case proved best when compared to the traditional approach.

Keywords

• Procedimentos cirúrgicos minimamente invasivos
• Valva aórtica
• Doenças das valvas cardíacas
• Surgical procedures, minimally invasive
• Aortic valve
• Heart valve diseases