Minimally invasive approaches versus conventional sternotomy for aortic valve replacement in patients with aortic valve disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 17 269 patients.

Background: Aortic valve replacement (AVR) is a common procedure for aortic valve pathologies, particularly in the elderly. While traditional open AVR is established, minimally invasive techniques aim to reduce morbidity and enhance treatment outcomes. The authors' meta-analysis compares these approaches with conventional sternotomy, offering insights into short and long-term mortality and postoperative results. This study provides valuable evidence for informed decision-making between conventional and minimally invasive approaches for AVR. Materials and methods: Till August 2023, PubMed, Embase, and MEDLINE databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCT) and propensity score matched (PSM) studies comparing minimally invasive approaches [mini-sternotomy (MS) and right mini-thoracotomy (RMT)] with full sternotomy (FS) for AVR. Various outcomes were analyzed, including mortality rates, bypass and clamp times, length of hospital stay, and complications. Risk ratios (RR) and the weighted mean differences (WMD) with corresponding 95% CIs were calculated using Review Manager. Results: Forty-eight studies were included having 17 269 patients in total. When compared to FS, there was no statistically significant difference in in-hospital mortality in MS (RR:0.80; 95% CI:0.50-1.27; I2=1%; P=0.42) and RMT (RR:0.70; 95% CI:0.36-1.35; I2=0%; P=0.29). FS was also linked with considerably longer cardiopulmonary bypass duration than MS (MD:8.68; 95% CI:5.81-11.56; I2=92%; P=0.00001). The hospital length of stay was determined to be shorter in MS (MD:-0.58; 95% CI:-1.08 to -0.09; I2=89%; P=0.02) with no statistically significant difference in RMT (MD:-0.67; 95% CI:-1.42 to 0.08; I2=84%; P=0.08) when compared to FS. Conclusions: While mortality rates were comparable in minimally invasive approaches and FS, analysis shows that MS, due to fewer respiratory and renal insufficiencies, as well as shorter hospital and ICU stay, may be a safer approach than both RMT and FS.

Minimally Invasive and Full Sternotomy Aortic Valve Replacements Lead to Comparable Long-Term Outcomes in Elderly Higher-Risk Patients: A Propensity-Matched Comparison.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (AVR) via upper ministernotomy (MiniAVR) is a standard alternative to full sternotomy access. Minimally invasive cardiac surgery has been proven to provide a number of benefits to patients. The aim of this study was to compare the short- and long-term outcomes after MiniAVR versus conventional AVR via full sternotomy (FS) using a biological prosthesis in an elderly higher-risk population. METHODS: Between January 2006 and July 2009, 918 consecutive patients received AVR ± additional procedures with different prostheses at our center. Amongst them, 441 received isolated AVR using a biological prosthesis (median age of 74.5; range: 52-93 years; 50% females) and formed the study population (EuroSCORE II: 3.62 ± 5.5, range: 0.7-42). In total, 137 (31.1%) of the operations were carried out through FS, and 304 (68.9%) were carried out via MiniAVR. Follow-up was complete in 96% of the cases (median of 7.6 years, 6610 patient-years). Propensity score matching (PSM) resulted in two groups of 68 patients with very similar baseline profiles. The primary endpoints were long-term survival, freedom from reoperation, and endocarditis, and the secondary endpoints were early major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs). RESULTS: FS led to shorter cardio-pulmonary bypass and aortic cross-clamp durations: 90 (47-194) vs. 100 (46-246) min (p = 0.039) and 57 (33-156) vs. 69 (32-118) min (p = 0.006), respectively. Perioperative stroke occurred in three patients (4.4%; FS) vs. one patient (1.5%; MiniAVR) (p = 0.506). The 30-day mortality was similar in both groups (2.9%, p = 1.000). Survival at 1, 5, and 10 years was 94.1 ± 3% (FS and MiniAVR), 80.3 ± 5% vs. 75.7 ± 5%, and 45.3 ± 6% vs. 43.8 ± 6%, respectively (p = 0.767). There were two (2.9%) reoperations in each group and two thrombo-embolic events (2.9%) vs. one (1.5%) thrombo-embolic event in the MiniAVR and FS groups, respectively (p = 0.596). CONCLUSIONS: In comparison to FS, MiniAVR provided similar short- and long-term outcomes in a higher-risk elderly population receiving biological prostheses. In particular, long-term survival, freedom from reoperation, and the incidence of endocarditis were comparable. These results clearly advocate for the routine use of MiniAVR as a standard procedure for AVR, even in a high-risk population.

Early and late outcomes after minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass vs. full sternotomy off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting.

Objectives: Minimally-invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB) is a less-invasive alternative to full sternotomy off-pump coronary artery bypass (FS-OPCAB) revascularization of the left anterior descending artery (LAD). Some studies suggested that MIDCAB is associated with a greater risk of graft occlusion and repeat revascularization than FS-OPCAB LIMA-to-LAD grafting. Data comparing MIDCAB to FS-OPCAB with regard to long-term follow-up is scarce. We compared short- and long-term results of MIDCAB vs. FS-OPCAB revascularization over a maximum follow-up period of 10 years. Patients and methods: From December 2009 to June 2020, 388 elective patients were included in our retrospective study. 229 underwent MIDCAB, and 159 underwent FS-OPCAB LIMA-to-LAD grafting. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to adjust for selection bias and to estimate treatment effects on short- and long-term outcomes. IPTW-adjusted Kaplan-Meier estimates by study group were calculated for all-cause mortality, stroke, the risk of repeat revascularization and myocardial infarction up to a maximum follow-up of 10 years. Results: MIDCAB patients had less rethoracotomies (n = 13/3.6% vs. n = 30/8.0%, p = 0.012), fewer transfusions (0.93 units ± 1.83 vs. 1.61 units ± 2.52, p < 0.001), shorter mechanical ventilation time (7.6 ± 4.7 h vs. 12.1 ± 26.4 h, p = 0.005), and needed less hemofiltration (n = 0/0% vs. n = 8/2.4%, p = 0.004). Thirty-day mortality did not differ significantly between the two groups (n = 0/0% vs. n = 3/0.8%, p = 0.25). Long-term outcomes did not differ significantly between study groups. In the FS-OPCAB group, the probability of survival at 1, 5, and 10 years was 98.4%, 87.8%, and 71.7%, respectively. In the MIDCAB group, the corresponding values were 98.4%, 87.7%, and 68.7%, respectively (RR1.24, CI0.87-1.86, p = 0.7). In the FS group, the freedom from stroke at 1, 5, and 10 years was 97.0%, 93.0%, and 93.0%, respectively. In the MIDCAB group, the corresponding values were 98.5%, 96.9%, and 94.3%, respectively (RR0.52, CI0.25-1.09, p = 0.06). Freedom from repeat revascularization at 1, 5, and 10 years in the FS-OPCAB group was 92.2%, 84.7%, and 79.5%, respectively. In the MIDCAB group, the corresponding values were 94.8%, 90.2%, and 81.7%, respectively (RR0.73, CI0.47-1.16, p = 0.22). Conclusion: MIDCAB is a safe and efficacious technique and offers comparable long-term results regarding mortality, stroke, repeat revascularization, and freedom from myocardial infarction when compared to FS-OPCAB.

Upper Hemisternotomy Versus Full Sternotomy for Replacement of the Supracoronary Ascending Aorta and Aortic Valve.

OBJECTIVE: Upper hemisternotomy (UHS) for supracoronary ascending aorta replacement (scAAR) with concomitant aortic valve replacement (AVR) results in less trauma and potentially faster convalescence compared with full sternotomy (FS). Direct head-to-head studies are lacking. We compared a group of UHS patients with a matched group of FS patients undergoing scAAR and AVR. METHODS: There were 198 patients who underwent scAAR and AVR procedures by a single surgeon between 1999 and 2020. After matching 6 preoperative characteristics, there were 50 UHS and 50 FS patients. Patients who required acute type A aortic dissection repair, reoperations, concomitant procedures, or hypothermic circulatory arrest were excluded. RESULTS: In the matched sample, the hospital mortality rate was 1% (1 of 100). The median cardiopulmonary bypass time was 150 (interquartile range [IQR], 131 to 172) min and 164.5 (IQR, 138 to 190) min, respectively, for the UHS and FS groups (P = 0.08). The median aortic cross-clamp time was 121 (IQR, 107 to 139) min during UHS and 131 (IQR, 115 to 159) min during FS (P = 0.05). The median ventilation time was 7 (IQR, 3 to 14) h versus 17 (IQR, 10 to 24) h, respectively, after UHS and FS (P = 0.005). The median hospital length of stay was 7 (IQR, 6 to 9) days after UHS and 8 (IQR, 7 to 11) days after FS (P = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The low morbidity and mortality support the wider use of UHS for scAAR and AVR in appropriately selected patients. Larger studies are needed to confirm these initial findings.

Effect of minimally invasive versus conventional aortic root replacement on transfusion and postoperative wound complications in patients: A meta-analysis.

We examined whether small incision aortic root replacement could reduce the amount of blood transfusion during operation and the risk of postoperative complications. An extensive e-review of the 4 main databases (PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science and EMBASE) was carried out to determine all the published trials by July 2023. The search terms used were associated with partial versus full sternotomy and aortic root. This analysis only included the study articles that compared partial and full sternotomy. After excluding articles based on titles or abstracts, selected full-text articles had reference lists searched for any potential further articles. We analysed a total of 2167 subjects from 10 comparable trials. The minimally invasive aortic root graft in breastbone decreased the duration of hospitalization (MD, -2.58; 95% CI, -3.15, -2.01, p < 0.0001) and intraoperative red blood cell transfusion (MD, -1.27; 95% CI, -2.34, -0.19, p = 0.02). However, there were no significant differences in wound infection (OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.16, 4.93, p = 0.88), re-exploration for bleeding (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.60, 1.53, p = 0.86), intraoperative blood loss (MD, -259.19; 95% CI, -615.11, 96.73, p = 0.15) and operative time (MD, -7.39; 95% CI, -19.10, 4.32, p = 0.22); the results showed that the microsternotomy did not differ significantly from that of the routine approach. Small sternotomy may be an effective and safe substitute for the treatment of the aorta root. Nevertheless, the wide variety of data indicates that larger, well-designed studies are required to back up the current limited literature evidence showing a benefit in terms of complications like postoperative wound infections or the volume of intraoperative red blood cell transfusion.

Comparison Between Mini-Sternotomy and Full Sternotomy for Aortic Valve Replacement: A 10-Year Retrospective Study.

Introduction Aortic valve replacement (AVR) is a mainstay treatment for moderate to severe aortic valve stenosis. This retrospective study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of mini-sternotomy and conventional sternotomy. Methodology This 10-year retrospective study compared the clinical outcomes of mini-sternotomy and full sternotomy. Patient-related outcomes include sternal wound dehiscence, operative time, length of hospital stay, and Intensive Care Unit (ICU) stay, whereas intraoperative parameters such as cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time and Aortic Cross Clamp time (ACCt) were compared between the two treatment groups. Results A total of 371 patients underwent AVR. Among them, 238 patients had AVR with full sternotomy and 133 patients had a mini-sternotomy. Full sternotomy patients had significantly lower bleeding than those in the mini-AVR group (p-0.002). The operation time was also found to be significantly higher in the mini-AVR group. The duration of hospital stays, ICU stay, and deep sternal wound dehiscence were recorded to be statistically insignificant between the two treatment groups. Atrial fibrillation, sternal wound dehiscence, stroke and perioperative myocardial infarctions, were equally observed between the two groups. Conclusion Mini-sternotomy is a safe option for AVR. The same number of complications were observed between the two groups; however, there was a reduction in the duration of hospital stay and ICU stay amongst the mini-sternotomy group.

Partial upper sternotomy for extensive arch repair in older acute type A aortic dissection patients.

OBJECTIVES: The partial upper sternotomy (PUS) approach is acceptable for aortic valve replacement, and even aortic root operation. However, the efficiency of PUS for extensive arch repair of acute type A aortic dissection (AAAD) in older adult patients has not been well investigated. METHODS: Between January 2014 and December 2019, 222 older adult patients (≥ 65 years) diagnosed with AAAD went through extensive arch repair, among which 127 received PUS, and 95 underwent full sternotomy (FS). Logistic regression analysis was used to identify risk factors for early death, and negative binomial regression analysis was applied to explore risk factors related to post-operative ventilator-supporting time and intensive care unit stay time. RESULTS: Total early mortality was 8.1% (18/222 patients). The PUS group had shorter Cardiopulmonary bypass time (133.0 vs.155.0 min, P < 0.001), cross-clamp time (44.0 vs. 61.0 min, P < 0.001) and shorter selective cerebral perfusion time (11.0 vs. 21.0 min, P < 0.001) than the FS group. Left ventricle ejection fraction < 50% (odds ratio [OR] 17.05; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.87-155.63; P = 0.012) and malperfusion syndromes (OR 65.83; 95% CI 11.53-375.86; P < 0.001) were related to early death. In the multivariate model, the PUS approach contributed to shorter ventilator-supporting time (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.76; 95% CI 0.64-0.91; P = 0.003), when compared with the FS group. CONCLUSIONS: The early results of emergency extensive arch repair of AAAD via PUS in older adult patients were satisfactory. However, the long-term results remain to be investigated.

Perioperative incidence of ECMO and IABP on 5901 mitral valve surgery procedures.

BACKGROUND: Report the incidence and results of peri-operative extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) of patients undergoing mitral valve surgery (MVS) through right mini-thoracotomy (RT) and conventional full sternotomy (FS) for a period of 6 years from eleven tertiary Cardiac Surgery Institutes of GVM Care & Research Italia. METHODS: From January 2016 to November 2021, a total of 5901 consecutive patients underwent MVS through RT and FS. The primary outcome of the study was the mortality and incidence of low cardiac output syndrome (LCOS) treated with intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) with or without inotropic support and the incidence of Postcardiotomy Cardiogenic Shock (PCS) treated with Veno-arterial (VA) Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (ECMO) on patients undergoing mitral valve surgery (MVS) through right mini-thoracotomy (RT) versus conventional full sternotomy (FS). RESULTS: The mean age was 66 ± 15 years, 3389 patients underwent in RT approach 2512 in FS, 3081 (52%) patients were male and 2.3% had previous cardiac operations. Cardiopulmonary bypass time was 93 min for RT and 81 min for FS and cross clamp time 75 min for RT and 63 min for FS for mitral valve repair. Incidence of perioperative IABP for the treatment of low cardiac output was reported on 99 patients (1.6%), 51 for RT (1.5%), 35% used inotropic support (adrenaline and milrinone) and 48 in FS (1.9), 28% use inotropic support, 21 patients died after IABP (3 RT and 18 FS). Incidence of perioperative VA-ECMO for the PCS treatment was 13 and 4 with IABP, 9 RT (0.2%) and 4 FS approach (0.15%), 12 patients died after VA-ECMO. CONCLUSION: Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery is a safe and reproducible approach associated with low mortality and morbidity. ECMO and IABP incidence for the treatment of PCS was 0.2% and for Low cardiac output syndrome (LCOS) was 1.6% in elective mitral valve surgery is very low. The patients that use the perioperative IABP in minimally invasive mitral valve surgery (MIMVS) trough RT reported a reduced mortality compared to FS in relation to the operative risk and surgical technique. Low incidence of VA-ECMO was found in RT and FS approach, only one patient survived after VA-ECMO after minimally invasive mitral valve surgery.

Incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications in patients undergoing minimally invasive versus median sternotomy valve surgery: propensity score matching.

OBJECTIVE: Postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) are common incidents associated with an increased hospital stay, readmissions into the intensive care unit (ICU), increased costs, and mortality after cardiac surgery. Our study aims to analyze whether minimally invasive valve surgery (MIVS) can reduce the incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications compared to the full median sternotomy (FS) approach. METHODS: We reviewed the records of 1076 patients who underwent isolated mitral or aortic valve surgery (80 MIVS and 996 FS) in our institution between January 2015 and December 2019. Propensity score-matching analysis was used to compare outcomes between the groups and to reduce selection bias. RESULTS: Propensity score matching revealed no significant difference in hospital mortality between the groups. The incidence of PPCs was significantly less in the MIVS group than in the FS group (19% vs. 69%, respectively; P < 0.0001). The most common PPCs were atelectasis (P = 0.034), pleural effusions (P = 0.042), and pulmonary infection (P = 0.001). Prolonged mechanical ventilation time (> 24 h) (P = 0.016), blood transfusion amount (P = 0.006), length of hospital stay (P < 0.0001), and ICU stay (P < 0.0001) were significantly less in the MIVS group. Cardiopulmonary bypass (CBP), aortic cross-clamping, and operative time intervals were significantly longer in the MIVS group than in the matched FS group (P < 0.001). A multivariable analysis revealed a decreased risk of PPCs in patients undergoing MIVS (odds ratio, 0.25; 95% confidence interval, 0.006-0.180; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: MIVS for isolated valve surgery reduces the risk of PPCs compared with the FS approach.

Comparative Evaluation of the Incidence of Postoperative Pulmonary Complications After Minimally Invasive Valve Surgery vs. Full Sternotomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials and Propensity Score-Matched Studies.

Background: Postoperative pulmonary complications remain a leading cause of increased morbidity, mortality, longer hospital stays, and increased costs after cardiac surgery; therefore, our study aims to analyze whether minimally invasive valve surgery (MIVS) for both aortic and mitral valves can improve pulmonary function and reduce the incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications when compared with the full median sternotomy (FS) approach. Methods: A comprehensive systematic literature research was performed for studies comparing MIVS and FS up to February 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and propensity score-matching (PSM) studies comparing early respiratory function and pulmonary complications after MIVS and FS were extracted and analyzed. Secondary outcomes included intra- and postoperative outcomes. Results: A total of 10,194 patients from 30 studies (6 RCTs and 24 PSM studies) were analyzed. Early mortality differed significantly between the groups (MIVS 1.2 vs. FS 1.9%; p = 0.005). Compared with FS, MIVS significantly lowered the incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications (odds ratio 0.79, 95% confidence interval [0.67, 0.93]; p = 0.004) and improved early postoperative respiratory function status (mean difference -24.83 [-29.90, -19.76]; p < 0.00001). Blood transfusion amount was significantly lower after MIVS (p < 0.02), whereas cardiopulmonary bypass time and aortic cross-clamp time were significantly longer after MIVS (p < 0.00001). Conclusions: Our study showed that minimally invasive valve surgery decreases the incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications and improves postoperative respiratory function status.

The mini-Bentall approach: Comparison with full sternotomy.

BACKGROUND: The upper mini sternotomy Bentall (mini-Bentall) procedure may result in less trauma and earlier recovery compared with the full sternotomy Bentall procedure (full Bentall). This study compares immediate and 1- and 3-year survival rates after mini- and full Bentall procedures. METHODS: Between February 2009 and July 2019, 48 patients underwent a mini-Bentall and 49 underwent a full Bentall. Patients who required concomitant procedures, reoperations, or hypothermic circulatory arrest were excluded from our analysis. The mean patient age was 60.7 years in the mini-Bentall group and 59.0 years in the full Bentall group. RESULTS: There were no in-hospital mortalities. The median cardiopulmonary bypass time (mini-Bentall: 165 minutes [interquartile range (IQR), 155.5-183 minutes]; full Bentall: 164 minutes [IQR, 150-187 minutes]; P = .619) and aortic cross-clamp times (139 minutes [IQR, 128.5-153 minutes] vs 137 minutes [IQR, 125-156 minutes]; P = .948) were not significantly different between the 2 groups. The mini-Bentall group had a significantly shorter median ventilation time compared with the full Bentall group (5.5 hours [IQR, 3-14 hours] vs 17 hours [IQR, 11-23 hours]; P < .001). None of the patients in the mini-Bentall group had postoperative bleeding necessitating reoperation, whereas 4 patients (8.2%) underwent reoperation after full Bentall (P = .043). The mini-Bentall group also had a shorter median hospital length of stay (6 days [IQR, 5-8 days] vs 7 days [IQR, 6-8 days]; P = .086). Survival at 1 and 3 years was 100% in both cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Patients required significantly less ventilation time and reoperations for bleeding after the mini-Bentall procedure. There were no significant differences in cardiopulmonary bypass, aortic cross-clamp times, or intensive care unit and hospital length of stay between the mini-Bentall and full Bentall groups. The mini-Bentall approach is associated with low morbidity and mortality.

Minimal access versus conventional aortic valve replacement: a meta-analysis of propensity-matched studies.

Conventional aortic valve replacement (CAVR) via a full sternotomy is the standard surgical approach for aortic valve replacement. Minimal access aortic valve replacement (MAAVR) is commonly performed via a partial sternotomy and a right minithoracotomy. Such procedures aim not only to reduce the invasiveness but to offer the same quality, safety and results of the conventional approach. Our goal was to compare both procedures by performing a meta-analysis of reports with risk adjustment that performed a propensity-matched analysis. Relevant articles were searched for in Medline, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Scopus database based on predefined criteria and end-points. The early and late outcomes and complications were compared in the selected studies. A total of 4558 patients from 9 studies were enrolled; 2279 (50%) underwent CAVR and 2279 (50%) underwent MAAVR. There was a significantly lower rate of postoperative low output syndrome (1.4% vs 2.3%, P = 0.05) and atrial fibrillation (11.7% vs 15.9%, P = 0.01) in the MAAVR than in the CAVR group, respectively. In contrast, aortic cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times were significantly longer in the MAAVR group (P < 0.05). Finally, the incidence of early deaths (1.5% vs 2.2%, P = 0.14), stroke (1.4% vs 2%, P = 0.20), myocardial infarction (0.4% vs 0.5%, P = 0.65), renal injury (4.5% vs 6%, P = 0.71), respiratory complications (9% vs 10.1%, P = 0.45), re-exploration for bleeding (4.9% vs 4.1%, P = 0.27) and pacemaker implantation (3.3% vs 4.1%, P = 0.31) was similar in both groups, respectively. In summary, even though MAAVR procedure, either through partial sternotomy or right minithoracotomy, provides patient satisfaction due to the smaller incision and better cosmetics, MAAVR is as safe as the CAVR procedure. Although MAAVR takes slightly longer, it was not associated with greater cardiopulmonary bypass-related adverse effects. Interestingly, MAAVR shows a lower incidence of low cardiac output syndrome and atrial fibrillation.

The economic value of rapid deployment aortic valve replacement via full sternotomy.

AIM: To compare the economic value of EDWARDS INTUITY Elite™ (EIE) valve system for rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement (RDAVR) in a full sternotomy (FS) approach (EIE-FS-RDAVR) versus FS-AVR using conventional stented bioprosthesis. DATA & METHODS: A simulation model to compare each treatment's 30-day inpatient utilization and complication rates utilized: clinical end points obtained from the TRANSFORM trial patient subset (EIE-FS-RDAVR) and a best evidence review of the published literature (FS-AVR); and costs from the Premier database and published literature. RESULTS: EIE-FS-RDAVR costs $800 less than FS-AVR per surgery episode attributable to lowered complication rates and utilization. Combined with the lower mortality, EIE-FS-RDAVR was a superior (dominant) technology versus FS-AVR. CONCLUSION: This preliminary investigation of EIE-FS-RDAVR versus conventional FS-AVR found the EIE valve offered superior economic value over a 30-day period. Real-world analyses with additional long-term follow-up are needed to evaluate if this result can be replicated over a longer timeframe.

Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement versus aortic valve replacement through full sternotomy: the Brigham and Women's Hospital experience.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive aortic valve surgery (mini AVR) is a safe and effective treatment option at many hospital centers, but there has not been widespread adoption of the procedure. Critics of mini AVR have called for additional evidence with direct comparison to aortic valve replacement (AVR) via full sternotomy (FS). METHODS: Our mini AVR approach is through a hemi-sternotomy (HS). We performed a propensity-score matched analysis of all patients undergoing isolated AVR via FS or HS at our institution since 2002, resulting in 552 matched pairs. Baseline characteristics were similar. Operative characteristics, transfusion rates, in-hospital outcomes as well as short and long term survival were compared between groups. RESULTS: Median cardiopulmonary bypass and cross clamp times were shorter in the HS group: 106 minutes [inter-quartile ranges (IQR) 87-135] vs. 124 minutes (IQR 90-169), P≤0.001, and 76 minutes (IQR 63-97) vs. 80 minutes (IQR 62-114), P≤0.005, respectively. HS patients had shorter ventilation times (median 5.7 hours, IQR 3.5-10.3 vs. 6.3 hours, IQR 3.9-11.2, P≤0.022), shorter intensive care unit stay (median 42 hours, IQR 24-71 vs. 45 hours, IQR 24-87, P≤0.039), and shorter hospital length of stay (median 6 days, IQR 5-8 vs. 7 days, IQR 5-10, P≤0.001) compared with the FS group. Intraoperative transfusions were more common in FS group: 27.9% vs. 20.0%, P≤0.003. No differences were seen in short or long term survival, or time to aortic valve re-intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Our study confirms the clinical benefits of minimally invasive AVR via HS, which includes decreased transfusion requirements, ventilation times, intensive care unit and hospital length of stay without compromising short and long term survival compared to conventional AVR via FS.

Reoperative aortic valve replacement in the octogenarians-minimally invasive technique in the era of transcatheter valve replacement.

OBJECTIVE: Reoperative aortic valve replacement (re-AVR) in octogenarians is considered high risk and therefore might be indicated for transcatheter AVR. The minimally invasive technique for re-AVR limits dissection and might benefit this patient population. We report the outcomes of re-AVR in high-risk octogenarians who might be considered candidates for transcatheter AVR to assess the safety of re-AVR and minimally invasive operative techniques. METHODS: We identified 105 patients, aged ≥80 years, who underwent open re-AVR at our institution from July 1997 to December 2011. Patients requiring concomitant coronary bypass surgery and/or other valve surgery were excluded. The outcomes of interest included operative mortality, postoperative complications, and midterm postoperative survival. RESULTS: Of the 105 patients, 51 underwent minimally re-AVR through upper hemisternotomy (Mre-AVR) and 54 standard full sternotomy (Fre-AVR). The mean patient age was 82.8 ± 3.8 years. No significant differences were found in the patient risk factors. Postoperatively, 6 patients (5.7%) underwent reoperation for bleeding, 4 (3.8%) experienced permanent stroke, 4 (3.8%) developed new renal failure, and 22 (21.0%) had new-onset atrial fibrillation. Overall, the operative mortality was 6.7%, and the 1- and 5-year survival was 87% and 53%, respectively. When Mre-AVR and Fre-AVR were compared, the operative mortality was 9.2% in the Fre-AVR group and 3.9% in the Mre-AVR group (P = .438). Kaplan-Meier analysis showed a survival benefit at both 1 year (79% ± 11.7% vs 92% ± 7.8%) and 5 years (38% ± 17.6% vs 65% ± 15.7%, P = .028) favoring Mre-AVR. Cox regression analysis identified heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, reoperation for bleeding, older age, full sternotomy, and an infectious complication as predictors of mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Octogenarians who undergo re-AVR are thought to be high-risk surgical candidates. The present single-center series revealed acceptable in-hospital outcomes and operative mortality. Mre-AVR was associated with better survival compared with Fre-AVR and might benefit this population.

Minimal Skin Incision with Full Sternotomy for Congenital Heart Surgery / 대한흉부외과학회지

BACKGROUND: Although there have been few reports about minimal skin incision for the repair of congenital heart lesions, minimizing an unsightly scar is a particularly important factor in growing children. We have adopted a technique that permits standard full sternotomy, conventional open chest cardiopulmonary bypass, aortic cross-clamping, left atrial vent, and antegrade cardioplegia with minimal surgical scar. MATERIAL AND METHOD: With minimal skin incision and full sternotomy, 40 patients with congenital heart disease underwent open heart surgery from April 1997 through September 1997. Defects repaired included 30 ventricular septal defects, 4 atrial septal defects, and 1 sinus Valsalva aneurysm in 35 children(M:F=17: 18), and 3 Atrial septal defects, 1 ventricular septal defect, and 1 partial atrioventricular septal defect in 5 adults(M:F=1:4). Midline skin incision was performed from the second intercostal space to 1 or 2 cm above the xiphoid process. For full sternotomy, we used the ordinary sternal saw in sternal body, and a special saw in manubrium under the skin flap. During sternal retraction, surgical field was obtained by using two retractors in a crossed direction. RESULT: The proportion of the skin incision length to the sternal length was 63.1+/-3.9%(5.2~11cm, mean 7.3cm) in children, and 55.0+/-3.5%(10~13.5cm, mean 12cm) in adults. In every case, the aortic and venous cannulations could be done through the sternal incision without additional femoral cannulation. There was no hospital death, wound infection, skin necrosis, hematoma formation, or bleeding complication. CONCLUSION: We conclude that minimal skin incision with full sternotomy can be a safe and effective alternative method for the repair of congenital heart diseases in children and adults.