Abstract
Objective: We assessed the available literature regarding patients undergoing minimally invasive mitral valve surgery (MIMVS) with either transthoracic clamping (TTC) or endoaortic balloon occlusion (EABO). Methods: Original research studies that evaluated the perioperative outcomes of TTC versus EABO group were identified from 2000 to 2024. The incidence of all-cause mortality, cerebrovascular accidents (CVA), and aortic dissections were the primary endpoints. The cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB), cross-clamp, and ventilation time, along with the incidence of conversion to sternotomy, re-exploration, new-onset atrial fibrillation (AF), postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI), ICU stay, and LOS were the secondary endpoints. Subgroup analyses were performed regarding the EABO cannulation approach (femoral and aortic) and MIMVS approach (video-assisted and robotic-assisted). Sensitivity analyses were performed with the leave-one-out method and by including risk-adjusted populations. Results: Sixteen studies were included in both the qualitative and quantitative syntheses. After pooling data from 6335 patients, both groups demonstrated similar outcomes on all primary and secondary endpoints in the non-adjusted and adjusted total cohort analyses. These outcomes were further validated by the leave-one-out sensitivity analysis. In addition, the aortic cannulation EABO was associated with a lower cross-clamp time, followed by TTC and the femoral cannulation EABO approach. Furthermore, in the video-assisted subgroup analysis, the EABO approach was associated with a higher incidence of CVA, conversion to sternotomy, and longer ICU stay compared to the TTC group. Conclusions: The present meta-analysis indicates that both aortic occlusion techniques are safe and feasible in the context of MIMVS. A future well-designed randomized-control trial should further validate the current outcomes.