In serum, the dose-and surface-corrected exposure toward cisplatin (area under the curve(0-5d)) was significantly lower with cisplatin-fibrin than with cisplatin-solution https://www.selleckchem.com/products/ly2090314.html (P < .0005). This is also reflected by significantly reduced serum creatinine and urea values in the cisplatinfibrin group (P < .0001). Animals treated with cisplatin-fibrin additionally

had a significantly better postoperative course as assessed by a well-being score (P < .001).

Conclusions: After cisplatin-fibrin treatment, cisplatin tissue concentration was increased whereas systemic cisplatin concentrations were significantly reduced in comparison with cisplatin-solution treatment. This finding offers a clear advantage

inasmuch as rate and severity of systemic adverse events can be reduced while local cytotoxic concentrations are at least maintained. (J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2011;141:65-71)”
“Objective: Robotic mitral valve repair is the least invasive approach to mitral valve repair, yet there are few data comparing its outcomes with those of conventional approaches. Therefore, we compared outcomes of robotic mitral valve repair with those of complete sternotomy, partial sternotomy, and right mini-anterolateral thoracotomy.

Methods: From January 2006 to January 2009, 759 patients AZD2281 purchase with degenerative mitral valve disease and posterior leaflet prolapse underwent primary isolated mitral valve surgery by complete sternotomy (n = 114), partial sternotomy (n = 270), right mini-anterolateral thoracotomy (n = 114), or a robotic

approach (n 261). Outcomes were compared on an intent-to-treat basis using propensity-score matching.

Results: Mitral valve repair was achieved in all patients except 1 patient in the complete sternotomy group. In matched groups, median cardiopulmonary bypass time was 42 minutes longer for robotic than complete sternotomy, 39 minutes longer than partial sternotomy, and 11 minutes longer than right mini-anterolateral thoracotomy (P < .0001); median myocardial ischemic time was 26 minutes longer than complete sternotomy and partial sternotomy, and 16 minutes longer than right mini-anterolateral PI3K inhibitor thoracotomy (P < .0001). Quality of mitral valve repair was similar among matched groups (P = .6, .2, and .1, respectively). There were no in-hospital deaths. Neurologic, pulmonary, and renal complications were similar among groups (P > .1). The robotic group had the lowest occurrences of atrial fibrillation and pleural effusion, contributing to the shortest hospital stay (median 4.2 days), 1.0, 1.6, and 0.9 days shorter than for complete sternotomy, partial sternotomy, and right mini-anterolateral thoracotomy (all P < .001), respectively.

Conclusions: Robotic repair of posterior mitral valve leaflet prolapse is as safe and effective as conventional approaches.