RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Vacuum assisted venous drainage (VAVD) is widely adopted in minimally invasive cardiac surgery. VAVD enables the advantage of using smaller cannulae in a reduced surgical field while allowing satisfactory drainage and pump flow. The production of gaseous micro-emboli is a recognized risk associated with VAVD, however no difference in clinical endpoints have been reported between patients operated on with gravity venous drainage (GVD) or with VAVD. Due to the paucity of data on selected surgical populations, we sought to evaluate the early outcomes of patients undergoing isolated aortic valve replacement using VAVD or GVD. METHODS: Data on 521 patients between 09/2016 and 09/2022 were retrieved from our internal database. Patients were divided into two groups according to use VAVD or GVD. A propensity match analysis was performed to account for difference between the two groups. RESULTS: The propensity match provided two well balanced cohorts with 129 patients each. A minimally invasive access was used in 97% of the cases in VAVD group vs 98% in GVD group (p = .68). Mean cardiopulmonary by-pass (CPB) time was 71 vs 73 min (p = .74), respectively. There was no difference in lactates peak (p = .19) and urine output during CPB (p = .74). We registered two in-hospital deaths in VAVD cohort (1.6%) vs. no mortality in GVD group (p = .5). Postoperative cerebral stroke occurred in 1 patient in GVD cohort vs. 0 in VAVD (p = 1). Severe postoperative acute kidney injury complicated the course in 16 patients in GVD group and in 5 patients who had VAVD (p = .012). VAVD was associated with a higher number of patients with elevated postoperative AST (p = .07) and Troponin I (p = .01) values. CONCLUSIONS: The use of VAVD during isolated aortic valve replacement was not associated with increased risks of postoperative complications and in-hospital mortality with results that were at least similar to those registered in a matched cohort of patients operated on with GVD.
RESUMO
Treatment of aortic valve disease has become less and less invasive during the last years, thanks to progress in anesthesiology, surgical techniques, and perfusion management. In fact, it has been demonstrated that shorter skin incision, combined with ultra-fast-track anesthesia and minimized extracorporeal circuit could improve clinical outcomes. Current evidence shows that minimally invasive extracorporeal circulation system is associated with reduced red blood cells' transfusion rate, improved end-organ perfusion, decreased incidence of postoperative atrial fibrillation, air embolism leakage, and so less cerebral accidents with better neurological outcomes. Moreover, the use of a closed circuit seems to be more physiologic for the patients, reducing systemic inflammatory response due to less air-blood contact and the use of biocompatible surfaces. In the literature, the benefits of minimally invasive extracorporeal circulation are described mostly for coronary surgery but few data are nowadays available for minimally invasive extracorporeal circulation during aortic valve replacement. In this article, we describe our perfusion protocol in minimally invasive aortic valve replacement.
