Minimally Invasive vs Conventional Aortic Valve Replacement With Rapid-Deployment Bioprostheses

Aortic Valve Replacement: Is Minimally Invasive Really Better? A Contemporary Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

In recent years, minimally invasive cardiac surgery has increased in prevalence. There has been significant debate regarding the optimal approach to isolated aortic valve replacement between conventional midline sternotomy and minimally invasive approaches. We performed a systematic review of the contemporary literature comparing minimally invasive to full sternotomy aortic valve replacement. PubMed and Embase were systematically searched for articles published from 2010-2021. A total of 1215 studies were screened and 45 studies (148,606 patients total) met the inclusion criteria. This study found rates of in-hospital mortality were higher with full sternotomy than ministernotomy ( P = 0.02). 30-day mortality was higher with full sternotomy compared to right anterior thoracotomy ( P = 0.006). Renal complications were more common with full sternotomy versus ministernotomy ( P < 0.00001) and right anterior thoracotomy ( P < 0.0001). Rates of wound infections were greater with full sternotomy than ministernotomy ( P = 0.02) and right anterior thoracotomy ( P < 0.00001). Intensive care unit length of stay ( P = 0.0001) and hospital length of stay ( P < 0.0001) were shorter with ministernotomy compared to full sternotomy. This review found that minimally invasive approaches to isolated aortic valve replacement result in reduced early mortality and select measures of postoperative morbidity; however, long-term mortality is not significantly different based on surgical approach. An analysis of mortality alone is not sufficient for the selection of the optimal approach to isolated aortic valve replacement. Surgeon experience, individual patient characteristics, and preference require thorough consideration, and additional studies investigating quality of life measures will be imperative in identifying the optimal approach to isolated aortic valve replacement.

Minimally invasive versus conventional aortic valve replacement: The network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Outcome comparisons after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) with minimally invasive approaches including mini-sternotomy (MS) and right mini-thoracotomy (RMT) and full sternotomy (FS) have been conflicting. Furthermore, the synthesis of mid-term mortality has not been performed.

METHODS

MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched through April 2022 to identify propensity score matched (PSM) studies or randomized controlled trial (RCT) which compared outcomes following SAVR among three incisional approaches: FS, MS, or RMT. The network analysis was performed to compare these approaches with random effects model. Mid-term mortality was defined as 1-year mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 42 studies met the inclusion criteria enrolling 14,925 patients. RCT and PSM were performed in 13 and 29 studies, respectively. The operative mortality was significantly lower with MS compared to FS (risk ratio [RR]: 0.60, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.41-0.90, p = .01, I²  = 25.8%) or RMT (RR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.27-0.97, p = .03, I²  = 25.8%). RMT had significantly higher risk of reoperation for bleeding compared to MS (RR: 1.65, 95% CI: 1.18-2.30, p = .003, I²  = 0%). Hospital length of stay was significantly shorter with MS compared to FS (mean difference: -0.89 days, 95% CI: -1.58 to -0.2, p = .01, I²  = 95.5%) while it was equivocal between FS and RMT. The mid-term mortality was similar among the three approaches.

CONCLUSIONS

While mid-term mortality was comparable among approaches, MS may be a safe and potentially more effective approach than FS and RMT for SAVR in the short term.

Use of Sutureless and Rapid Deployment Prostheses in Challenging Reoperations

Sutureless and rapid-deployment bioprostheses have been introduced as alternatives to traditional prosthetic valves to reduce cardiopulmonary and aortic cross-clamp times during aortic valve replacement. These devices have also been employed in extremely demanding surgical settings, as underlined in the present review. Searches on the PubMed and Medline databases aimed to identify, from the English-language literature, the reported cases where both sutureless and rapid-deployment prostheses were employed in challenging surgical situations, usually complex reoperations sometimes even performed as bailout procedures. We have identified 25 patients for whom a sutureless or rapid-deployment prosthesis was used in complex redo procedures: 17 patients with a failing stentless bioprosthesis, 6 patients with a failing homograft, and 2 patients with the failure of a valve-sparing procedure. All patients survived reoperation and were reported to be alive 3 months to 4 years postoperatively. Sutureless and rapid-deployment bioprostheses have proved effective in replacing degenerated stentless bioprostheses and homografts in challenging redo procedures. In these settings, they should be considered as a valid alternative not only to traditional prostheses but also in selected cases to transcatheter valve-in-valve solutions.