Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Aortic Valve Replacement in Obese Patients: A Propensity-Matched Study.

INTRODUCTION: Obese patients are at risk of complications after cardiac surgery. The aim of this study is to investigate safety and efficacy of a minimally invasive approach via upper sternotomy in this setting. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 203 obese patients who underwent isolated, elective aortic valve replacement between January 2014 and January 2023 - 106 with minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MIAVR) and 97 with conventional aortic valve replacement (CAVR). To account for baseline differences, a propensity-matching analysis was performed obtaining two balanced groups of 91 patients each. RESULTS: The 30-day mortality rate was comparable between groups (1.1% MIAVR vs. 0% CAVR, P=0.99). MIAVR patients had faster extubation than CAVR patients (6 ± 2 vs. 9 ± 2 hours, P<0.01). Continuous positive airway pressure therapy was less common in the MIAVR than in the CAVR group (3.3% vs. 13.2%, P=0.03). Other postoperative complications did not differ significantly. Intensive care unit stay (1.8 ± 1.2 vs. 3.2 ± 1.4 days, P<0.01), but not hospital stay (6.7 ± 2.1 vs. 7.2 ± 1.9 days, P=0.09), was shorter for MIAVR than for CAVR patients. Follow-up survival was comparable (logrank P-value = 0.58). CONCLUSION: MIAVR via upper sternotomy has been shown to be a safe and effective option for obese patients. Respiratory outcome was promising with shorter mechanical ventilation time and reduced need for post-extubation support. The length of stay in the intensive care unit was reduced. These advantages might be important for the obese patient to whom minimally invasive surgery should not be denied.

Influence of cardiopulmonary bypass set-up and management on clinical outcomes after minimally invasive aortic valve surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MIAVR) requires changes in cannulation strategy and cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) management when compared to the conventional approach (CAVR). We aimed at evaluating if these differences could influence perfusion-related quality parameters and impair postoperative outcomes. METHODS: Overall, 339 consecutive patients underwent MIAVR or CAVR between 2014 and 2020 and were analyzed retrospectively. To account for baseline differences, a propensity-matching analysis was performed, obtaining two groups of 97 patients each. RESULTS: MIAVR group had longer CPB time [107 (95-120) vs 95 (86-105) min, p = .003] than CAVR group. Of note, average pump flow rate index [2.4 (2.2-2.5) vs 2.7 (2.4-2.8) l/min/m2, p = .004] was lower in the MIAVR group. Mean arterial pressure was 73 = 9 mmHg vs 62 = 11 mmHg for the MIAVR and CAVR group, respectively (p < .001). Cell-salvaged blood was most commonly used in the MIAVR group (25.8% vs 11.3%, p = .02). Finally, CPB temperature was 32.8°C (32.1-34.8) for MIAVR group vs 34.9°C (33.2-36.1) for the CAVR group (p = .02). Postoperative complications were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, despite differences in CPB parameters in patients undergoing CAVR and MIAVR, the incidences of adverse outcomes were similar. However, compared to CAVR, MIAVR was associated with shorter durations of mechanical ventilation and hospital stay as well as less transfusion of blood products.

Minimally Invasive Aortic Valve Surgery in Octogenarians: Reliable Option or Fallback Solution?

OBJECTIVE: Aortic valve disease is more and more common in western countries. While percutaneous approaches should be preferred in older adults, previous reports have shown good outcomes after surgery. Moreover, advantages of minimally invasive approaches may be valuable for octogenarians. We sought to compare outcomes of conventional aortic valve replacement (CAVR) versus minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MIAVR) in octogenarians. METHODS: We retrospectively collected data of 75 consecutive octogenarians who underwent primary, elective, isolated aortic valve surgery through conventional approach (41 patients, group CAVR) or partial upper sternotomy (34 patients, group MIAVR). RESULTS: Mean age was 81.9 ± 0.9 and 82.3 ± 1.1 years in CAVR and MIAVR patients, respectively (P = 0.09). MIAVR patients had lower 24-hour chest drain output (353.4 ± 207.1 vs 501.7 ± 229.9 mL, P < 0.01), shorter mechanical ventilation (9.6 ± 2.4 vs 11.3 ± 2.3 hours, P < 0.01), lower need for blood transfusions (35.3% vs 63.4%, P = 0.02), and shorter hospital stay (6.8 ± 1.6 vs 8.3 ± 4.3 days, P < 0.01). Thirty-day mortality was zero in both groups. Survival at 1, 3, and 5 years was 89.9%, 80%, and 47%, respectively, in the CAVR group, and 93.2%, 82.4%, and 61.8% in the MIAVR group, with no statistically significant differences (log-rank test, P = 0.35). CONCLUSIONS: Aortic valve surgery in older patients provided excellent results, as long as appropriate candidates were selected. MIAVR was associated with shorter mechanical ventilation, reduced blood transfusions, and reduced hospitalization length, without affecting perioperative complications or mid-term survival.

Improved Patient Recovery With Minimally Invasive Aortic Valve Surgery: A Propensity-Matched Study.

OBJECTIVE: Despite conflicting evidence available, minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MIAVR) is increasingly used as an alternative to full sternotomy. We sought to compare early outcomes of aortic valve replacement through a full sternotomy (conventional aortic valve replacement [CAVR]) and upper ministernotomy (MIAVR). METHODS: We analyzed 297 patients having undergone primary, elective, isolated MIAVR or CAVR between January 2014 and June 2018. Following propensity score matching, 120 patients remained in each group. RESULTS: MIAVR required longer bypass (93 ± 26 vs 81 ± 24 minutes, P < 0.01) and operative times (214 ± 39 vs 182 ± 37 minutes, P < 0.01). However, aortic cross-clamp times were comparable (57 ± 17 vs 54 ± 14 minutes for MIAVR and CAVR, respectively, P = 0.14). MIAVR had less 24-hour blood loss (253 ± 204 vs 323 ± 296 mL, P = 0.03), less red blood cells transfusions [1.4 packs (1.1 o 1.9) vs 2.1 packs (1.8 to 2.7), P = 0.01], and shorter assisted ventilation time (7.1 ± 3.3 vs 9.7 ± 3.8 hours, P < 0.01) when compared to CAVR. These results led to significantly shorter intensive care unit and hospital stays for MIAVR patients (2.5 ± 1.3 vs 3.4 ± 1.1 days, P < 0.01 and 6.9 ± 4.1 vs 8.2 ± 4.8 days, P = 0.03, respectively). Thirty-day mortality and clinical outcomes did not differ significantly among groups. CONCLUSIONS: MIAVR through upper ministernotomy was shown to be as safe and reliable as CAVR. Patient recovery time was improved by shortening mechanical ventilation and reducing blood loss and transfusions. These results may be significant for high-risk patients undergoing aortic valve surgery.