Long-Term Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Endoscopic Versus Sternotomy Surgical Resection of Primary Cardiac Tumors

Objective: Primary cardiac tumors are uncommon, often benign, but can be potentially life threatening. Minimally invasive endoscopic (ENDO) techniques have been shown to be a feasible alternative for tumor resection compared with conventional sternotomy (CS). This study compared the clinical and surgical outcomes of a small series of patients undergoing cardiac tumor resection operations.Methods: Between November 2009 and December 2022, 34 consecutive patients underwent cardiac tumor resection using either ENDO (n = 21) or CS (n = 13) techniques. We compared early perioperative outcomes, echocardiographic outcomes, and long-term clinical and tumor recurrence outcomes.Results: Baseline characteristics were similar between groups; however, the ENDO group included younger patients (56 +/- 16 vs 62 +/- 17 years) and more female patients (83% vs 53%). The tumor was located in the left atrium (n = 19, 56%), right atrium (n = 5, 15%), or either ventricle (n = 4, 12%). In-hospital mortality and stroke frequency were similar for both groups (n = 0). There was no significant difference in cardiopulmonary bypass or cross-clamp times, respiratory or renal failure, or intensive care unit or hospital lengths of stay. At follow-up (ENDO, 42 [2 to 131] months vs CS, 54 [1 to 156] months), there were no deaths in the ENDO group and 2 patients died in the CS group (P = 0.21). No patients in either group experienced tumor recurrence.Conclusions: In selected patients, both ENDO and CS approaches to primary cardiac tumor resection were safe, effective, durable, and associated with similarly good early and late results.