ArticleJournal of cardiothoracic surgery2023
Minimally invasive valve surgery including patients of combined simultaneous surgery: a retrospective study.
Article in Journal of cardiothoracic surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study investigated the perioperative safety and advantages of performing a minimally invasive valve surgery (MIVS) and conducting a preliminary examination of the combined simultaneous surgery (CSS).
methodsA total of 29 patients (16 men and 13 women; mean age, 58.41 ± 13.08 years) who underwent MIVS at our center from July 2021 to March 2022 were selected. Among them, 16 patients underwent aortic valve surgery (AVS), 13 patients underwent mitral valve surgery (MVS), and four patients additionally underwent CSS.
resultsThe MIVS time ranged from 165 to 420 min, with a mean of 230.54 ± 54.61 min; the cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time ranged from 54 to 164 min, with a mean of 120.24 ± 25.98 min; the aortic cross-clamp (ACC) time ranged from 36 to 118 min, with a mean of 78.66 ± 21.01 min and an automatic heart resuscitating rate was 89.66%; the mean tracheal intubation time was 6.30 ± 3.87 h, and the median total postoperative drainage was 317.5 (35, 1470) ml. No difference was observed between preoperative and postoperative left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (61.90% ± 6.28% vs. 60.21% ± 5.52%, P = 0.281). The difference in postoperative drainage (419.20 ml ± 377.20 ml vs. 588.75 ml ± 673.63 ml, P = .461), tracheal intubation time (6.66 h ± 4.27 h vs. 4.63 h ± 1.11 h, P = .359), intensive care unit (ICU) stay (3.96 ± 8.62 days vs. 2.00 ± 0.816 days, P = .658), and postoperative hospital stay (9.96 ± 8.45 days vs. 8.25 ± 1.26 days, P = .694) between MIVS and CSS was not significant.
conclusionMIVS in our center may be safe and effective. Additionally, CSS may be a feasible option that could be performed after a thorough preoperative evaluation and multidisciplinary discussion.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.