Search

Literature regarding monitoring and consequences of distal limb ischemia due to femoral artery cannulation for Minimally Invasive Cardiac Surgery (MICS) remains limited. The primary objective was to determine its incidence, defined as a ≥ 15% difference in regional Oxygen Saturation (rSO2) lasting ≥ four consecutive minutes between the cannulated and non-cannulated limb. The secondary objectives included: determination of distal limb ischemia, defined as a Tissue Oxygenation Index (TOI) < 50% in the cannulated limb, identification of predictors for distal limb ischemia, determination of a possible association of NIRS-diagnosed ischemia with acute kidney injury, and the need for vascular surgery up to six months after cardiac surgery. A prospective, observational cohort study with blinded rSO2-measurements to prevent intraoperative clinical decision-making. A single-center, community-hospital, clinical study. All consecutive patients ≥ 18 years old, and scheduled for predefined MICS. Patients underwent MICS with bilateral calf muscle rSO2-measurements conducted by Near-Infrared Spectroscopy (NIRS). In total 75/280 patients (26.79%) experienced distal limb ischemia according to the primary objective, while 18/280 patients (6.42%) experienced distal limb ischemia according to the secondary objective. Multivariate logistic regression showed younger age to be an independent predictor for distal limb ischemia (p = 0.003). None of the patients who suffered intraoperative ischemia required vascular surgery within the follow-up period. The incidence of NIRS-diagnosed ischemia varied from 6.4% to 26.8% depending on the used criteria. Short and long-term vascular sequelae, however, are limited and not intraoperative ischemia related. The added value of intraoperative distal limb NIRS monitoring for vascular reasons seems limited. Future research on femoral artery cannulation in MICS should shift focus to other outcome parameters such as acute kidney injury, postoperative pain or paresthesias. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Minimally invasive procedures have been developed to reduce surgical trauma after cardiac surgery. Clinical recovery is the main focus of most research. Still, patient-centred outcomes, such as the quality of life, can provide a more comprehensive understanding of the impact of the surgery on the patient's life. This systematic review aims to deliver a detailed summary of all available research investigating the quality of recovery, assessed with quality of life instruments, in adults undergoing minimally invasive cardiac surgery. Methods: All randomised trials, cohort studies, and cross-sectional studies assessing the quality of recovery in patients undergoing minimally invasive cardiac surgery compared to conventional cardiac surgery within the last 20 years were included, and a summary was prepared. Results: The randomised trial observed an overall improved quality of life after both minimally invasive and conventional surgery. The quality of life improvement in the minimally invasive group showed a faster course and evolved to a higher level than the conventional surgery group. These findings align with the results of prospective cohort studies. In the cross-sectional studies, no significant difference in the quality of life was seen except for one that observed a significantly higher quality of life in the minimally invasive group. Conclusions: This systematic review indicates that patients may benefit from minimally invasive and conventional cardiac surgery, but patients undergoing minimally invasive cardiac surgery may recover sooner and to a greater extent. However, no firm conclusion could be drawn due to the limited available studies. Therefore, randomised controlled trials are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]