Mini-sternotomy vs right anterior thoracotomy for aortic valve replacement.

BACKGROUND: While minimally invasive techniques for aortic valve replacement (AVR) have been shown to be safe, limited data exist comparing the varying approaches. This study aimed to compare the outcomes between two minimally invasive approaches for AVR: mini-sternotomy (MS) and right anterior thoracotomy (RAT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and OVID was conducted for the period 1990-2019. Nine observational studies (n = 2926 patients) met the inclusion criteria. RESULTS: There was no difference in operative mortality between MS and RAT (odds ratio [OR]: 0.87, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.41-1.85; P = .709). Meta-analyses favored MS over RAT in reoperation for bleeding (OR: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.28-0.63; P < .001), aortic cross-clamp time (standardized mean difference [SMD]: -0.12, 95% CI: -0.20 to 0.029; P = .009), and the rate of conversion to sternotomy (OR: 0.32, 95% CI: 0.11-0.93; P = .036). The rate of permanent pacemaker insertion approached borderline significance in favor of MS (OR: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.26-1.12; P = .097). In-hospital outcomes of stroke, atrial fibrillation, and surgical site infection were similar between the two groups. The length of hospital stay was shorter for RAT (SMD: 0.12, 95% CI: 0.027-0.22; P = .012) and the length of postoperative ventilation was borderline significant in favor of RAT (SMD: 0.16, 95% CI: -0.027 to 0.34; P = .095). CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights important differences in short-term outcomes between MS and RAT as approaches for AVR. This has important implications for patient selection, especially in the elderly, where such approaches are becoming more common-place.

Minimally invasive versus conventional surgery of the ascending aorta and root: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Limited uptake of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) of the aorta hinders assessment of its efficacy compared to median sternotomy (MS). The objective of this systematic review is to compare operative and perioperative outcomes for MIS versus MS. Online databases Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science were searched from inception until July 2018. Both randomized and observational studies of patients undergoing aortic root, ascending aorta or aortic arch surgery by MIS versus MS were eligible for inclusion. Primary outcomes were 30-day mortality, reoperation for bleeding, perioperative renal impairment and neurological events. Intraoperative and postoperative timing measures were also evaluated. Thirteen observational studies were included comparing 1101 MIS and 1405 MS patients. The overall quality of evidence was very low for all outcomes. Mortality and the incidence of stroke were similar between the 2 cohorts. Meta-analysis demonstrated increased length of cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time for patients undergoing MS [standardized mean difference 0.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15-0.58; P = 0.001]. Patients receiving MS spent more time in hospital (standardized mean difference 0.30, 95% CI 0.17-0.43; P < 0.001) and intensive care (standardized mean difference 0.17, 95% CI 0.06-0.27; P < 0.001). Reoperation for bleeding (risk ratio 1.51, 95% CI 1.06-2.17; P = 0.024) and renal impairment (risk ratio 1.97, 95% CI 1.12-3.46; P = 0.019) were also greater for MS patients. There was substantial heterogeneity in meta-analyses for CPB and aortic cross-clamp timing outcomes. MIS may be associated with improved early clinical outcomes compared to MS, but the quality of the evidence is very low. Randomized evidence is needed to confirm these findings.

Transthoracic clamp versus endoaortic balloon occlusion in minimally invasive mitral valve surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to determine outcomes following aortic occlusion with the transthoracic clamp (TTC) versus endoaortic balloon occlusion (EABO) in patients undergoing minimally invasive mitral valve surgery. A subgroup analysis compares TTC to EABO with femoral cannulation separately from EABO with aortic cannulation. We searched Medline and Embase up to December 2018. Two people independently and in duplicate screened title and abstracts, full-text reports, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for non-randomized studies. We identified 1564 reports from which 11 observational studies with 4181 participants met the inclusion criteria. We found no evidence of difference in the risk of postoperative death or cerebrovascular accident (CVA) between the 2 techniques. Evidence for a reduction in aortic dissection with TTC was found: 4 of 1590 for the TTC group vs 19 of 2492 for the EABO group [risk ratio 0.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.12-0.93; P = 0.04]. There was no difference in aortic cross-clamp (AoX) time between TTC and EABO [mean difference (MD) -5.17 min, 95% CI -12.40 to 2.06; P = 0.16]. TTC was associated with a shorter AoX time compared to EABO with femoral cannulation (MD -9.26 min, 95% CI -17.00 to -1.52; P = 0.02). EABO with aortic cannulation was associated with a shorter AoX time compared to TTC (MD 7.77 min, 95% CI 3.29-12.26; P < 0.001). There was no difference in cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time between TTC and EABO with aortic cannulation (MD -4.98 min, 95% CI -14.41 to 4.45; P = 0.3). TTC was associated with a shorter CPB time compared to EABO with femoral cannulation (MD -10.08 min, 95% CI -19.93 to -0.22; P = 0.05). Despite a higher risk of aortic dissection with EABO, the rates of survival and cerebrovascular accident across the 2 techniques are similar in minimally invasive mitral valve surgery.