Abstract：
UNASSIGNED: The aim of this study was to investigate the outcomes of robotic mitral valve surgery with and without concomitant tricuspid valve surgery.
UNASSIGNED: Patients who underwent robotic mitral surgery between March 2010 and September 2022 were included. Patients were grouped according to the presence of concomitant tricuspid interventions. The groups were compared for baseline factors, operative parameters, and early postoperative outcomes. Age- and gender-matched groups were also compared for outcomes.
UNASSIGNED: The study included 285 robotic mitral surgery patients. There were 59 patients who underwent concomitant tricuspid interventions. In the concomitant tricuspid surgery group, cardiopulmonary bypass time (150.1 vs 128.4 min, P < 0.001) and cross-clamp time (99.2 vs 82.4 min, P < 0.001) were longer. Prolonged intubation was more frequent in the concomitant tricuspid intervention group (5.2% vs 0.5%, P = 0.029). The groups did not differ in terms of mortality, permanent pacemaker (PPM) requirement, or other morbidities. Perioperative outcomes were similar after matched group analysis.
UNASSIGNED: Operative mortality and early adverse outcomes did not increase with the addition of tricuspid intervention in our cohort of robotic mitral surgery patients. The robotic approach for mitral disease and coexisting tricuspid disease may offer safe results without an increased risk of postoperative PPM requirement.
UNASSIGNED: Patients who underwent robotic mitral surgery between March 2010 and September 2022 were included. Patients were grouped according to the presence of concomitant tricuspid interventions. The groups were compared for baseline factors, operative parameters, and early postoperative outcomes. Age- and gender-matched groups were also compared for outcomes.
UNASSIGNED: The study included 285 robotic mitral surgery patients. There were 59 patients who underwent concomitant tricuspid interventions. In the concomitant tricuspid surgery group, cardiopulmonary bypass time (150.1 vs 128.4 min, P < 0.001) and cross-clamp time (99.2 vs 82.4 min, P < 0.001) were longer. Prolonged intubation was more frequent in the concomitant tricuspid intervention group (5.2% vs 0.5%, P = 0.029). The groups did not differ in terms of mortality, permanent pacemaker (PPM) requirement, or other morbidities. Perioperative outcomes were similar after matched group analysis.
UNASSIGNED: Operative mortality and early adverse outcomes did not increase with the addition of tricuspid intervention in our cohort of robotic mitral surgery patients. The robotic approach for mitral disease and coexisting tricuspid disease may offer safe results without an increased risk of postoperative PPM requirement.
摘要：
■本研究的目的是调查机器人二尖瓣手术伴和不伴三尖瓣手术的结果。
■纳入2010年3月至2022年9月期间接受机器人二尖瓣手术的患者。根据伴随的三尖瓣干预措施的存在对患者进行分组。比较两组的基线因素，操作参数,和术后早期结果。还比较了年龄和性别匹配的组的结果。
■该研究包括285名机器人二尖瓣手术患者。59例患者同时接受三尖瓣干预。在伴随的三尖瓣手术组中，体外循环时间（150.1vs128.4分钟，P<0.001）和交叉钳夹时间（99.2vs82.4分钟，P<0.001）更长。在伴随三尖瓣干预组中，延长插管频率更高（5.2％vs0.5％，P=0.029)。两组在死亡率方面没有差异，永久性起搏器(PPM)要求,或其他疾病。经过配对组分析，围手术期结果相似。
■在我们的机器人二尖瓣手术患者队列中，增加三尖瓣干预并没有增加手术死亡率和早期不良结局。二尖瓣疾病和共存的三尖瓣疾病的机器人方法可以提供安全的结果，而不会增加术后PPM需求的风险。
■纳入2010年3月至2022年9月期间接受机器人二尖瓣手术的患者。根据伴随的三尖瓣干预措施的存在对患者进行分组。比较两组的基线因素，操作参数,和术后早期结果。还比较了年龄和性别匹配的组的结果。
■该研究包括285名机器人二尖瓣手术患者。59例患者同时接受三尖瓣干预。在伴随的三尖瓣手术组中，体外循环时间（150.1vs128.4分钟，P<0.001）和交叉钳夹时间（99.2vs82.4分钟，P<0.001）更长。在伴随三尖瓣干预组中，延长插管频率更高（5.2％vs0.5％，P=0.029)。两组在死亡率方面没有差异，永久性起搏器(PPM)要求,或其他疾病。经过配对组分析，围手术期结果相似。
■在我们的机器人二尖瓣手术患者队列中，增加三尖瓣干预并没有增加手术死亡率和早期不良结局。二尖瓣疾病和共存的三尖瓣疾病的机器人方法可以提供安全的结果，而不会增加术后PPM需求的风险。
