Ministernotomy versus conventional sternotomy for aortic valve replacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Optimizing Aortic Valve Reoperations: Ministernotomy vs. Full Sternotomy

Background: The minimally invasive approach, performed via ministernotomy, is now often preferred for isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR). However, its benefits in patients with prior cardiac surgery remain unclear. This article compares traditional and minimally invasive surgery for isolated aortic valve replacement in reoperative cases. Methods: A retrospective analysis of 382 patients who underwent reoperative AVR between January 2010 and June 2024 divided them into two groups: 309 patients (80.1%) had a traditional full sternotomy, while 73 patients (19.1%) had minimally invasive AVR via upper ministernotomy. Results: Significant differences were noted between the groups. The full sternotomy group had a higher logistic EuroSCORE (SMD = 0.203), more patients with active endocarditis (SMD = 0.312), and a higher pacemaker rate. To minimize bias, inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used. The minimally invasive group had shorter aortic cross-clamp (50 vs. 65 min, p < 0.001) and cardiopulmonary bypass times (62 vs. 85 min, p < 0.001), shorter intensive care unit (ICU) stays (p < 0.001), lower rates of acute renal failure (p = 0.001), and less blood loss (p < 0.001), but similar transfusion needs. Early mortality was higher in the full sternotomy group (4.5% vs. 1.6%, p = 0.025). Conclusions: Minimally invasive aortic valve reoperation via upper "J" sternotomy is as safe as full sternotomy. Patients experienced lower rates of acute renal failure and less postoperative bleeding, contributing to a safer recovery with decreased hospital mortality.

Midterm Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Aortic Valve Replacement via Right Lateral Minithoracotomy

OBJECTIVE

Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MIAVR) procedures have been found to have good short-term results. However, no known reports regarding outcomes of MIAVR via a right lateral minithoracotomy (LT) approach over longer terms have been presented. The aim of the present study was to analyze the midterm outcomes of the use of MIAVR with the right LT approach over an 8-year period.

METHODS

Between September 2014 and February 2023, MIAVR was performed for 348 patients with severe aortic valve stenosis and regurgitation at our hospital. Operative mortality, all-cause mortality, and valve-related events were retrospectively examined.

RESULTS

The mean patient age was 72.3 ± 10.9 years, while 78 patients (22.4%) were more than 80 years old. Surgical, cardiopulmonary bypass, and cross-clamp times were 194.7 ± 43.2, 118.6 ± 28.7, and 89.4 ± 23.3 min, respectively. The 30-day mortality rate was 0.3%. The mean follow-up period was 35.6 ± 25.9 months. Overall survival shown by Kaplan-Meier analysis at 1, 3, and 5 years was 96.4%, 90.3%, and 83.2%, respectively, and freedom from valve-related events at those time points was noted in 100%, 99.5%, and 96.9% of the cases, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

MIAVR via a right LT approach was found to be associated with excellent short-term and midterm outcomes and is considered to have the potential to become an established surgical option.

Endoscopic Minimally Invasive Approach Versus Median Sternotomy for Multiple-Valve Surgery: A Propensity-Matched Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic minimally invasive valve surgery is a promising alternative to valve surgery through median sternotomy. Our study compared the short-term outcomes of patients undergoing endoscopic minimally invasive multiple concomitant valve surgeries (MIMVS) with median sternotomy (MS).

METHODS

Demographic, clinical, and procedural data of all consecutive patients who underwent multiple-valve surgeries at two institutions in Germany from March of 2017 to March of 2023 were retrospectively collected. Patients were divided into two groups: MIMVS versus MS and their outcomes were compared before and after propensity score matching. Primary endpoint was the incidence of 30-day mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 317 patients were included in the study; 112 patients in each group were matched 1:1. MIMVS was performed on 123 patients. After propensity matching, 30-day mortality rates were 8% for MIMVS versus 12.5% for MS (p = 0.28). Median blood transfusion in the MIMVS group was 0 [0-3] vs 1 [0-4] in the MS group (p = 0.002). MIMVS was associated with similar cardiopulmonary bypass time 105.5 [79.8-124] versus 98 [68.8-130.3] mins and aortic cross clamping times 70 [53-80.3] versus 63.5 [46-90.3] mins (p values 0.9 and 0.76, respectively). Median intensive care and inhospital stays were similar between both groups (2 [1-4] vs 2 [1-5] days, p = 0.36, and 12 [8-17] vs 12.5 [9-21] days, p = 0.38). Incidences of intrathoracic bleeding, stroke, and acute kidney injury were similar in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In our experience, endoscopic minimally invasive multiple-valve surgeries through right anterior mini-thoracotomy is as feasible, safe, and effective as medial sternotomy in select patients.

Contemporary Management of the Aortic Valve-Narrative Review of an Evolving Landscape

Background: Aortic valve replacement has undergone novel changes in recent decades, providing not only a multitude of procedural options but expanding the treatable patient population. Specifically, a number of minimally invasive and interventional treatment options have allowed for the treatment of high and prohibitive risk surgical patients. Further, technology is allowing for the development of innovative surgical and transcatheter valve models, which will advance the treatment of aortic valve disease in the future. Objective: Here, we choose to describe the modern aortic valve replacement techniques and the available valves and designs.

Lower Ministernotomy: An Approach for Treating All Valvulopathies?

BACKGROUND

Lower ministernotomy offers the advantage of providing excellent visualization of the 4 cardiac cavities, thus allowing surgical treatment of the aortic, mitral, and tricuspid valves as well as any intracavitary procedure. Information on technical issues, as well as safety and echocardiographic results of this approach, are sparse. The aim of this retrospective study was to describe outcomes of lower ministernotomy to treat valvulopathies and for other intracardiac surgical procedures.

METHODS

All consecutive patients aged more than 18 years who underwent cardiac surgery by ministernotomy between January 2017 and March 2023 in our institution (Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, Sorbonne University, Paris, France) were included in this retrospective study. Main outcome variables were all-cause mortality, postoperative complications, and echocardiographic results.

RESULTS

During the 6-year study period, 633 patients were treated through a lower ministernotomy. Among them, 338 patients had aortic valve surgery (AVS) with or without tricuspid annuloplasty (TA), 254 had mitral valve surgery (MVS) with or without TA, 25 had AVS and MVS with or without TA, and 38 had other types of intracardiac surgery. Hospital survival was 99.1% in the AVS group, 98.1% in the MVS with or without TA group, 96% in the AVS and MVS with or without TA group, and 97.4% in the other intracardiac surgery group. Only 1 patient required repeat osteosynthesis in the entire cohort, and 12 (2.1%) patients had mediastinitis. A total of 162 (25%) patients received transfusions, 11 patients (1.7%) had permanent strokes, and 49 (7.5%) underwent new pacemaker implantation.

CONCLUSIONS

Lower ministernotomy is a safe approach for treating all valvulopathies, separately or concomitantly, and other intracardiac diseases, and it is associated with a low rate of morbidity and mortality.

Pulmonary endarterectomy through inverted-T upper hemisternotomy

Objective

We aimed to explore the feasibility of an inverted-T upper hemisternotomy approach for pulmonary endarterectomy (PEA) and report the results after 17 cases.

Methods

PEA was conducted through a 7-cm skin incision using an inverted-T upper hemisternotomy across the third intercostal spaces. Cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) was established through central arterial and percutaneous femoral dual-staged venous cannulation. Perioperative and hemodynamic data were compared with 17 previous conventional PEAs performed by the same surgeon.

Results

From July 2022 to September 2023, 22 PEAs were performed, 17 through inverted-T upper hemisternotomy. Contraindications were an inferior caval vein filter, concomitant coronary revascularization or mitral valve surgery, pulmonary artery intimal sarcoma, and an emergency. Compared with 17 preceding conventional PEAs, there was no significant difference in demographics or in CPB time (274 [256-301] vs 264 [250-274] minutes, P = .1629), deep hypothermic circulatory arrest time (56 [45-65] vs 54 [50-58] minutes, P = .9587), preoperative pulmonary vascular resistance (4.12 [3.10-4.79] vs 4.49 [3.25-6.24] Wood units, P = .5890), 6-month postoperative pulmonary vascular resistance (1.90 [1.40-2.56] vs 1.83 [1.44-2.20] Wood units, P = .6374), or hospital stay (10 [8-12] vs 11 [9-14] days, P = .3327). Intravenous opioid use (0.29 [0.21-0.83] vs 2.99 [1.31-4.33] mg, P < 1.10-4) was significantly lower.

Conclusions

PEA using an inverted-T upper hemisternotomy approach is feasible and safe and obtains similar hemodynamic results compared with a full sternotomy approach without prolonging CPB and deep hypothermic circulatory arrest times. It offers bilateral treatment via a single incision and has few contraindications.

Minimally Invasive Aortic Valve Replacement for High-Risk Populations: Transaxillary Access Enhances Survival in Patients with Obesity

Background/Objectives: Minimally invasive cardiac surgery is often avoided in patients with obesity due to exposure and surgical access concerns. Nonetheless, these patients have elevated periprocedural risks. Minimally invasive transaxillary aortic valve surgery offers a sternum-sparing "nearly no visible scar" alternative to the traditional full sternotomy. This study evaluated the clinical outcomes of patients with obesity compared to a propensity score-matched full sternotomy cohort. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included 1086 patients with obesity (body mass index [BMI] of >30 kg/m2) undergoing isolated aortic valve replacement from 2014 to 2023. Two hundred consecutive patients who received transaxillary minimally invasive cardiac lateral surgery (MICLAT-S) served as a treatment group, while a control group was generated via 1:1 propensity score matching from 886 patients who underwent full sternotomy. The final sample comprised 400 patients in both groups. Outcomes included major adverse cardio-cerebral events, mortality, and postoperative complications. Results: After matching, the clinical baselines were comparable. The mean BMI was 34.4 ± 4.0 kg/m2 (median: 33.9, range: 31.0-64.0). Despite the significantly longer skin-to-skin time (135.0 ± 37.7 vs. 119.0 ± 33.8 min; p ≤ 0.001), cardiopulmonary bypass time (69.1 ± 19.1 vs. 56.1 ± 21.4 min; p ≤ 0.001), and aortic cross-clamp time (44.0 ± 13.4 vs. 41.9 ± 13.3 min; p = 0.044), the MICLAT-S group showed a shorter hospital stay (9.71 ± 6.19 vs. 12.4 ± 7.13 days; p ≤ 0.001), lower transfusion requirements (0.54 ± 1.67 vs. 5.17 ± 9.38 units; p ≤ 0.001), reduced postoperative wound healing issues (5.0% vs. 12.0%; p = 0.012), and a lower 30-day mortality rate (1.5% vs. 6.0%; p = 0.031). Conclusions: MICLAT-S is safe and effective. Compared to traditional sternotomy in patients with obesity, MICLAT-S improves survival, reduces postoperative morbidity, and shortens hospital stays.

Right anterior thoracotomy vs. upper hemisternotomy for aortic valve replacement with Perceval S: is there a difference?

Background

Our study aimed to evaluate the early outcomes of aortic valve replacement with Perceval S sutureless valve through the right anterior thoracotomy and upper hemisternotomy approaches, and to determine if there are any differences between these two approaches.

Methods

We carried out a study using data from 174 patients who underwent minimally invasive Perceval S valve implantation for aortic valve stenosis between January 2018 and August 2023. This was a retrospective, single-center observational study. The patients were divided into two groups: the hemisternotomy group (n = 100) and the right anterior thoracotomy group (n = 74).

Results

The overall in-hospital mortality was 1,7%. The cardiopulmonary bypass and cross-clamp times were longer in the right anterior thoracotomy group (p < .001). There were no statistically significant differences in terms of stroke, paravalvular leak, mechanical ventilation time, blood transfusion requirements, pacemaker implantation, reexploration for bleeding, conversion, wound infection, or in-hospital stay. Postoperative chest drainage was lower (p < .001) and postoperative atrial fibrillation occurred less frequently (p = .044) in the right anterior thoracotomy group. The median intensive care unit stay was shorter in the right anterior thoracotomy group (p = .018).

Conclusion

Aortic valve replacement with the Perceval S valve through either an upper hemisternotomy or a right anterior thoracotomy is a procedure associated with low perioperative complication rates. Right anterior thoracotomy for an aortic valve replacement with the Perceval S valve was associated with lower postoperative bleeding, a lower postoperative atrial fibrillation incidence and a shorter intensive care unit stay compared to upper hemistornotomy.

Minimally Invasive Approach versus Sternotomy for Cardiac Surgery in Jehovah's Witness Patients

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the outcomes of minimally invasive cardiac surgery (MICS) compared with the sternotomy approach for Jehovah's Witness (JW) patients who cannot receive blood transfusions DESIGN: This was a retrospective observational study.

SETTING

The study was conducted at a specialized cardiovascular intervention and surgery institute.

PARTICIPANTS

The study cohort comprised JW patients undergoing cardiac surgery between September 2016 and July 2022.

INTERVENTIONS

None MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Patients (n = 63) were divided into MICS (n = 19) and sternotomy (n = 44) groups, and clinical outcomes were analyzed. There was no difference in types of operation except coronary bypass grafting (n = 1 [5.3%] in the MICS group v n = 20 [45.5%] in the sternotomy group; p = 0.005). There were no between-group differences in early mortality and morbidities. Overall survival did not differ significantly during the follow-up period (mean, 43.9 ± 24.4 months). The amount of chest tube drainage was significantly lower in the MICS group on the first postoperative day (mean, 224.0 ± 122.7 mL v 334.0 ± 187.0 mL in the sternotomy group; p = 0.022). The mean hemoglobin level was significantly higher in the MICS group on the day of operation (11.7 ± 1.3 mg/dL v 10.6 ± 2.0 mg/dL in the sternotomy group; p = 0.042) and the first postoperative day (12.3 ± 1.8 mg/dL v 11.2 ± 1.9 mg/dL; p = 0.032).

CONCLUSIONS

MICS for JW patients showed favorable early outcomes and mid-term survival compared to conventional sternotomy. MICS may be a viable option for JW patients who decline blood transfusions.

Incidence of Clinical Outcomes in Minimally Invasive Valvular Surgery at the Ignacio Chávez National Institute of Cardiology

Minimally invasive cardiac valve replacement surgery (MICS) is a technique that has reported equivalent rates of mortality and reintervention when compared to conventional median sternotomy (CS). Additionally, MICS has inconsistently been reported to be associated with fewer postoperative complications, better cosmetic outcomes, and shorter hospital stays at the expense of longer surgical time, aortic clamp time, and extracorporeal circulation time. When comparing populations undergoing MICS vs CS at the Ignacio Chávez National Institute of Cardiology (INCICh), it was proven that there is a longer surgical, extracorporeal circulation, and aortic clamp durations in the MICS intervention, but no statistically significant difference in global mortality. MICS was also associated with a shorter hospital stay and less surgical discomfort. MICS can be considered an alternative and equivalent approach to CS for patients undergoing aortic and mitral valve replacement surgery in the Mexican population.

The reimplantation of anomalous aortic origin of the right coronary artery under lower mini-sternotomy

The patient was 28-year-old male. He was suffered from chest pain at rest. He was diagnosed with AAORCA (anomalous aortic origin of the right coronary artery) by emergency catheter. Myocardial scintigraphy indicated ischemic changes in the right coronary artery region, so surgery was the plan. Reimplantation was selected because the coronary artery computed tomography showed little intramural travel and mild coronary artery stenosis. The surgery was performed under lower mini-sternotomy to facilitate early return to work. The patient had a good postoperative course, and was discharged from the hospital postoperative Day 11 after rehabilitation. We report a case of the right coronary artery reimplantation with lower mini-sternotomy for AAORCA.

Sutureless Valves, a "Wireless" Option for Patients With Aortic Valve Disease: JACC State-of-the-Art Review

Transcatheter technologies triggered the recent revision of the guidelines that progressively widened the indications for the treatment of aortic stenosis. On the surgical realm, a technology avoiding the need for sutures to anchor the prosthesis to the aortic annulus has been developed with the aim to reduce the duration of cardiopulmonary bypass and simplify the process of valve implantation. In addition to a transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR)-like stent that exerts a radial force, these so-called "rapid deployment valves" or "sutureless valves" for aortic valve replacement also have cuffs to improve sealing and reduce the risk of paravalvular leak. Despite promising, the actual advantage of sutureless valves over traditional surgical procedures (surgical aortic valve replacement) or TAVR is still debated. This review summarizes the current comparative evidence reporting outcomes of "sutureless valves" for aortic valve replacement to TAVR and surgical aortic valve replacement in the treatment of aortic valve stenosis.

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.

Bleeding in minimally invasive versus conventional aortic valve replacement

BACKGROUND

Observational studies have shown reduced perioperative bleeding in patients undergoing minimally invasive, compared with full sternotomy, aortic valve replacement. Data from randomized trials are conflicting.

METHODS

This was a Swedish single center study where adult patients with aortic stenosis, 100 patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to undergo either minimally invasive (ministernotomy) or full sternotomy aortic valve replacement. The primary outcome was severe or massive bleeding defined by the Universal Definition of Perioperative Bleeding in adult cardiac surgery (UDPB). Secondary outcomes included blood product transfusions, chest tube output, re-exploration for bleeding, and several other clinically relevant events.

RESULTS

Out of 100 patients, three patients randomized to ministernotomy were intraoperatively converted to full sternotomy (none was bleeding-related). Three patients (6%) in the full sternotomy group and 3 patients (6%) in the ministernotomy group suffered severe or massive postoperative bleeding according to the UDPB definition (p = 1.00). Mean chest tube output during the first 12 postoperative hours was 350 (standard deviation (SD) 220) ml in the full sternotomy group and 270 (SD 190) ml in the ministernotomy group (p = 0.08). 28% of patients in the full sternotomy group and 36% of patients in the ministernotomy group received at least one packed red blood cells transfusion (p = 0.39). Two patients in each group (4%) underwent re-exploration for bleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement did not result in less bleeding-related outcomes compared to full sternotomy.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

http://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov . Unique identifier: NCT02272621.

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.

Minimally invasive, surgical, and transcatheter aortic valve replacement: A network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has evolved as an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). In addition to full-sternotomy (FS), recent reports have shown successful minimally-invasive SAVR approaches, including mini-sternotomy (MS) and mini-thoracotomy (MT). This network-meta-analysis (NMA) seeks to provide an outcomes comparison based on these different modalities (MS, MT, TAVR) compared with FS as a reference arm for the management of aortic valve disease.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was performed to identify studies that compared minimally-invasive SAVR (MS/MT) to conventional FS-SAVR, and/or TAVR. Bayesian NMA was performed using the random effects model. Outcomes were pooled as risk ratios (RR) with their 95 % confidence intervals (CIs). Our primary outcomes included 30-day mortality, stroke, acute kidney injury (AKI), major bleeding, new permanent pacemaker (PPM), and paravalvular leak (PVL). We also assessed long-term mortality at the latest follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 27,117 patients (56 studies) were included; 10,397 patients had FS SAVR, 9523 had MS, 5487 had MT, and 1710 had TAVR. Compared to FS, MS was associated with statistically-significantly lower rates of 30-day mortality (RR, 0.76, 95%CI 0.59-0.98), stroke (RR, 0.84, 95%CI 0.72-0.97), AKI (RR, 0.76, 95%CI 0.61-0.94), and long-term mortality (RR 0.84, 95%CI 0.72-0.97) at a weighted mean follow-up duration of 10.4 years, while MT showed statistically-significantly higher rates of 30-day PVL (RR, 3.76, 95%CI 1.31-10.85) and major bleeding (RR 1.45; 95%CI 1.08-1.94). TAVR had statistically significant lower rates of 30-day AKI (RR 0.49, 95%CI 0.31-0.77), but showed statistically-significantly higher PPM (RR 2.50; 95%CI 1.60-3.91) and 30-day PVL (RR 12.85, 95%CI 5.05-32.68) compared to FS.

CONCLUSIONS

MS was protective against 30-day mortality, stroke, AKI, and long-term mortality compared to FS; TAVR showed higher rates of 30-day PVL and PPM but was protective against AKI. Conversely, MT showed higher rates of 30-day PVL and major bleeding. With the emergence of TAVR, the appropriate benchmarks for SAVR comparison in future trials should be the minimally-invasive SAVR approaches to provide clinical equipoise.

Minimally Invasive versus Conventional Aortic Root Surgery: Results of an Intermediate-Volume Center

BACKGROUND

 We evaluate the outcome of aortic root surgery via an upper J: -shaped mini-sternotomy (MS) versus full sternotomy (FS) in an intermediate-volume center.

METHODS

 Between November 2011 and February 2019, 94 consecutive patients underwent aortic root surgery: 62 (66%) patients were operated via a J: -shaped MS (group A) and 32 (34%) patients via FS (group B). The primary endpoints were mortality, major adverse cardiac and cerebral events (MACCE), and reoperation in a 2-year follow-up. The secondary endpoints were perioperative complications and patient's satisfaction with the procedural results.

RESULTS

 Valve sparing root replacement (David procedure) was performed in 13 (21%) of the MS and 7 (22%) of the FS patients. The Bentall procedure in MS versus FS was 49 (79%) versus 25 (78%), respectively. Both groups presented similar mean operation, cardiopulmonary bypass, and cross-clamp times. Postoperative bleeding was 534 ± 300 and 755 ± 402 mL (p = 0.01) in MS and FS, respectively, erythrocyte concentrate substitution was 3 ± 3 and 5.3 ± 4.8 (p = 0.018) in MS and FS, respectively, and pneumonia rates were 0 and 9.4% (p = 0.03) in MS and FS, respectively. The 30-day mortality was 0% in both groups, whereas MACCE was 1.6 and 3% (p = 0.45) in MS and FS, respectively. After 2 years, the mortality and MACCE were 4.6 and 9.5% (p = 0.11) and 4.6 and 0% (p = 0.66) in MS and FS, respectively. The number of patients who were satisfied with the surgical cosmetic results in groups A and B was 53 (85.4%) and 26 (81%), respectively.

CONCLUSION

 Aortic root surgery via MS is a safe alternative to FS even in an intermediate-volume center. It offers a shorter recovery time and similar midterm results.

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.

Midterm outcomes of aortic valve replacement using a rapid-deployment valve for aortic stenosis: TRANSFORM trial

Background

The use of rapid-deployment valves (RDVs) has been shown to reduce the operative time for surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR). Long-term core laboratory-adjudicated data are scarce, however. Here we report final 7-year data on RDV use.

Methods

TRANSFORM was a prospective, nonrandomized, multicenter, single-arm trial implanting a stented bovine pericardial valve with an incorporated balloon-expandable sealing frame. A prior published 1-year analysis included 839 patients from 29 centers. An additional 46 patients were enrolled and implanted, for a total of 885 patients. Annual clinical and core laboratory-adjudicated echocardiographic outcomes were collected through 8 years. Primary endpoints were structural valve deterioration (SVD), all-cause reintervention, all-cause valve explantation, and all-cause mortality. Secondary endpoints included hemodynamic performance assessed by echocardiography. The mean duration of follow-up was 5.0 ± 2.0 years.

Results

The mean patient age was 73.3 ± 8.2 years. Isolated AVR was performed in 62.1% of the patients, and AVR with concomitant procedures was performed in 37.9%. Freedom from all-cause mortality at 7 years was 76.0% for isolated AVR and 68.2% for concomitant AVR. Freedom from SVD, all-cause reintervention, and valve explantation at 7 years was 97.5%, 95.7%, and 97.8%, respectively. The mean gradient and effective orifice area at 7 years were 11.1 ± 5.3 mm Hg and 1.6 ± 0.3 cm2, respectively. Paravalvular leak at 7 years was none/trace in 88.6% and mild in 11.4%. In patients undergoing isolated AVR, the cumulative probability of pacemaker implantation was 13.9% at 30 days, 15.5% at 1 year, and 21.8% at 7 years.

Conclusions

AVR for aortic stenosis using an RDV is associated with low rates of late adverse events. This surgical pericardial tissue platform provides excellent and stable hemodynamic performance through 7 years.

Limited versus full sternotomy for aortic valve replacement

BACKGROUND

Aortic valve disease is a common condition easily treatable with cardiac surgery. This is conventionally performed by opening the sternum ('median sternotomy') and replacing the valve under cardiopulmonary bypass. Median sternotomy is well tolerated, but as less invasive options become available, the efficacy of limited incisions has been called into question. In particular, the effects of reducing the visibility and surgical access have raised safety concerns with regard to the placement of cannulae, venting of the heart, epicardial wire placement, and de-airing of the heart at the end of the procedure. These difficulties may increase operating times, affecting outcome. The benefits of smaller incisions are thought to include decreased pain; improved respiratory mechanics; reductions in wound infections, bleeding, and need for transfusion; shorter intensive care stay; better cosmesis; and a quicker return to normal activity. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2017, with seven new studies.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of minimally invasive aortic valve replacement via a limited sternotomy versus conventional aortic valve replacement via median sternotomy in people with aortic valve disease requiring surgical replacement.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase from inception to August 2021, with no language limitations. We also searched two clinical trials registries and manufacturers' websites. We reviewed references of primary studies to identify any further studies of relevance.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing aortic valve replacement via a median sternotomy versus aortic valve replacement via a limited sternotomy. We excluded trials that performed other minimally invasive incisions such as mini-thoracotomies, port access, transapical, transfemoral or robotic procedures. Although some well-conducted prospective and retrospective case-control and cohort studies exist, these were not included in this review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial papers to extract data, assess quality, and identify risk of bias. A third review author provided arbitration where required. We determined the certainty of evidence using the GRADE methodology and summarised results of patient-relevant outcomes in a summary of findings table.

MAIN RESULTS

The review included 14 trials with 1395 participants. Most studies had at least two domains at high risk of bias. We analysed 14 outcomes investigating the effects of minimally invasive limited upper hemi-sternotomy on aortic valve replacement as compared to surgery performed via full median sternotomy. Upper hemi-sternotomy may have little to no effect on mortality versus full median sternotomy (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 1.94; 10 studies, 985 participants; low-certainty evidence). Upper hemi-sternotomy for aortic valve replacement may increase cardiopulmonary bypass time slightly, although the evidence is very uncertain (mean difference (MD) 10.63 minutes, 95% CI 3.39 to 17.88; 10 studies, 1043 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and may increase aortic cross-clamp time slightly (MD 6.07 minutes, 95% CI 0.79 to 11.35; 12 studies, 1235 participants; very low-certainty evidence), although the evidence is very uncertain. Most studies had at least two domains at high risk of bias. Postoperative blood loss was probably lower in the upper hemi-sternotomy group (MD -153 mL, 95% CI -246 to -60; 8 studies, 767 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Low-certainty evidence suggested that there may be no change in pain scores by upper hemi-sternotomy (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.19, 95% CI -0.43 to 0.04; 5 studies, 649 participants). Upper hemi-sternotomy may result in little to no difference in quality of life (MD 0.03 higher, 95% CI 0 to 0.06 higher; 4 studies, 624 participants; low-certainty evidence). Two studies reporting index admission costs concluded that limited sternotomy may be more costly at index admission in the UK National Health Service (MD 1190 GBP more, 95% CI 420 GBP to 1970 GBP, 2 studies, 492 participants; low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence was of very low to moderate certainty. Sample sizes were small and underpowered to demonstrate differences in some outcomes. Clinical heterogeneity was also noted. Considering these limitations, there may be little to no effect on mortality. Differences in extracorporeal support times are uncertain, comparing upper hemi-sternotomy to full sternotomy for aortic valve replacement. Before widespread adoption of the minimally invasive approach can be recommended, there is a need for a well-designed and adequately powered prospective randomised controlled trial. Such a study would benefit from also performing a robust cost analysis. Growing patient preference for minimally invasive techniques merits thorough quality of life analyses to be included as end points, as well as quantitative measures of physiological reserve.

Beyond Conventional Operations: Embracing the Era of Contemporary Minimally Invasive Cardiac Surgery

Over the past two decades, minimally invasive cardiac surgery (MICS) has gained a significant place due to the emergence of innovative tools and improvements in surgical techniques, offering comparable efficacy and safety to traditional surgical methods. This review provides an overview of the history of MICS, its current state, and its prospects and highlights its advantages and limitations. Additionally, we highlight the growing trends and potential pathways for the expansion of MICS, underscoring the crucial role of technological advancements in shaping the future of this field. Recognizing the challenges, we strive to pave the way for further breakthroughs in minimally invasive cardiac procedures.

Aortic Valve Replacement: Understanding Predictors for the Optimal Ministernotomy Approach

INTRODUCTION

The most common minimally invasive approach for aortic valve replacement (AVR) is the partial upper mini-sternotomy. The aim of this study is to understand which preoperative computed tomography (CT) features are predictive of longer operations in terms of cardio-pulmonary bypass timesand cross-clamp times.

METHODS

From 2011 to 2022, we retrospectively selected 246 patients which underwent isolated AVR and had a preoperative ECG-gated CT scan. On these patients, we analysed the baseline anthropometric characteristics and the following CT scan parameters: aortic annular dimensions, valve calcium score, ascending aorta length, ascending aorta inclination and aorta-sternum distance.

RESULTS

We identified augmented body surface area (>1.9 m2), augmented annular diameter (>23 mm), high calcium score (>2500 Agatson score) and increased aorta-sternum distance (>30 mm) as independent predictors of elongated operation times (more than two-fold).

CONCLUSIONS

Identifying the preoperative predictive factors of longer operations can help surgeons select cases suitable for minimally invasive approaches, especially in a teaching context.

Effects of parasternal intercostal block on surgical site wound infection and pain in patients undergoing cardiac surgery: A meta-analysis

This study aimed to assess the effect of parasternal intercostal block on postoperative wound infection, pain, and length of hospital stay in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP, and Wanfang databases were extensively queried using a computer, and randomised controlled studies (RCTs) from the inception of each database to July 2023 were sought using keywords in English and Chinese language. Literature quality was assessed using Cochrane-recommended tools, and the included data were collated and analysed using Stata 17.0 software for meta-analysis. Ultimately, eight RCTs were included. Meta-analysis revealed that utilising parasternal intercostal block during cardiac surgery significantly reduced postoperative wound pain (standardised mean difference [SMD] = -1.01, 95% confidence intervals [CI]: -1.70 to -0.31, p = 0.005) and significantly shortened hospital stay (SMD = -0.40, 95% CI: -0.77 to -0.04, p = 0.029), though it may increase the risk of wound infection (OR = 5.03, 95% CI:0.58-44.02, p = 0.144); however, the difference was not statistically significant. The application of parasternal intercostal block during cardiac surgery can significantly reduce postoperative pain and shorten hospital stay. This approach is worth considering for clinical implementation. Decisions regarding its adoption should be made in conjunction with the relevant clinical indices and surgeon's experience.

Rapid-Deployment Aortic Valve Replacement in a Real-World All-Comers Population

BACKGROUND

This study was conducted to evaluate the mid-term outcomes of rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement (AVR) using Edwards Intuity.

METHODS

A total of 215 patients underwent rapid-deployment AVR using Edwards Intuity at our institution. The median follow-up duration was 22 months (interquartile range, 8-36). Primary outcomes were overall survival, cumulative incidence of cardiac death, and major adverse cardiac events. Secondary outcomes were early and 1-year hemodynamic performances of the bioprosthetic valve.

RESULTS

The mean age was 68.6 ± 10.5 years, and EuroSCORE II was 3.09 ± 4.5. The study population included 113 patients (52.6%) with bicuspid valves (24 patients with type 0 bicuspid valves), 20 patients (9.3%) with pure aortic regurgitation, and 3 patients (1.4%) with infective endocarditis. Isolated AVR was performed in 70 patients (32.4%) and concomitant procedures were performed in 146 patients (67.6%), including aorta surgery (42.3%) and mitral valve procedure (22.3%). Operative mortality was 2.8%. Complete atrioventricular block occurred in 12 patients, but most of them were transient and only 3 patients received permanent pacemaker implantation before discharge. Overall survival at 3 years was 92.3%. Early hemodynamic data showed mean pressure gradients of 15.5 ± 5.0 and 12.7 ± 4.2 mm Hg in the 19 and 21 mm valve, respectively. One-year hemodynamics were also excellent with mean pressure gradients of 14.7 ± 5.3 and 10.7 ± 3.6 mm Hg in the 19 and 21 mm valve, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Based on a real-world all-comers population, rapid-deployment AVR using Edwards Intuity could be performed for various indications, including bicuspid valve, pure aortic regurgitation, and infective endocarditis, and the clinical and hemodynamic outcomes were excellent.

Is It Reasonable to Perform Isolated SAVR by Residents in the TAVI Era?

BACKGROUND

The role of conventional surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is increasingly questioned since the indication for transcatheter aortic valve implantations (TAVIs) is currently extended. While the number of patients referred to SAVR decreases, it is unclear if SAVR should be performed by junior resident surgeons in the course of a heart surgeons training.

METHODS

Patients with isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR) were analyzed with respect to the surgeon's qualification. AVR performed by resident surgeons was compared with AVR by senior surgeons. The collective was analyzed with respect to clinical short-term outcomes comparing full sternotomy (FS) with minimally invasive surgery and ministernotomy (MS) with right anterior thoracotomy (RAT) after a 1:1 propensity score matching.

RESULTS

The 30-day all-cause mortality was 2.3 and 3.4% for resident versus senior AVR groups, cerebrovascular event rates were 1.1 versus 2.6%, and no cases of significant paravalvular leak were detected. Clinical short-term outcomes between FS and minimally invasive access, as well after MS and RAT were comparable.

CONCLUSION

Our current data show feasibility and safety of conventional SAVR procedure performed by resident surgeons in the era of TAVI. Minimally invasive surgery should be trained and performed in higher volumes early in the educational process as it is a safe treatment option.

Anterior Access to the Cervicothoracic Junction via Partial Sternotomy: A Clinical Series Reporting on Technical Feasibility, Postoperative Morbidity, and Early Surgical Outcome

Surgical access to the cervicothoracic junction (CTJ) is challenging. The aim of this study was to assess technical feasibility, early morbidity, and outcome in patients undergoing anterior access to the CTJ via partial sternotomy. Consecutive cases with CTJ pathology treated via anterior access and partial sternotomy at a single academic center from 2017 to 2022 were retrospectively reviewed. Clinical data, perioperative imaging, and outcome were assessed with regards to the aims of the study. A total of eight cases were analyzed: four (50%) bone metastases, one (12.5%) traumatic instable fracture (B3-AO-Fracture), one (12.5%) thoracic disc herniation with spinal cord compression, and two (25%) infectious pathologic fractures from tuberculosis and spondylodiscitis. The median age was 49.9 years (range: 22-74 y), with a 75% male preponderance. The median Spinal Instability Neoplastic Score (SINS) was 14.5 (IQR: 5; range: 9-16), indicating a high degree of instability in treated cases. Four cases (50%) underwent additional posterior instrumentation. All surgical procedures were performed uneventfully, with no intraoperative complications. The median length of hospital stay was 11.5 days (IQR: 9; range: 6-20), including a median of 1 day in an intensive care unit (ICU). Two cases developed postoperative dysphagia related to stretching and temporary dysfunction of the recurrent laryngeal nerve. Both cases completely recovered at 3 months follow-up. No in-hospital mortality was observed. The radiological outcome was unremarkable in all cases, with no case of implant failure. One case died due to the underlying disease during follow-up. The median follow-up was 2.6 months (IQR: 23.8; range: 1-45.7 months). Our series indicates that the anterior approach to the cervicothoracic junction and upper thoracic spine via partial sternotomy can be considered an effective option for treatment of anterior spinal pathologies, exhibiting a reasonable safety profile. Careful case selection is essential to adequately balance clinical benefits and surgical invasiveness for these procedures.

Consensus statement on aortic valve replacement via an anterior right minithoracotomy in the UK healthcare setting

The wide uptake of anterior right thoracotomy (ART) as an approach for aortic valve replacement (AVR) has been limited despite initial reports of its use in 1993. Compared with median sternotomy, and even ministernotomy, ART is considered to be less traumatic to the chest wall and to help facilitate quicker patient recovery. In this statement, a consensus agreement is outlined that describes the potential benefits of the ART AVR. The technical considerations that require specific attention are described and the initiation of an ART programme at a UK centre is recommended through simulation and/or use of specialist instruments in conventional cases. The use of soft tissue retractors, peripheral cannulation, modified aortic clamping and the use of intraoperative adjuncts, such as sutureless valves and/or automated knot fasteners, are important to consider in order to circumvent the challenges of minimal the altered exposure via an ART.A coordinated team-based approach that encourages ownership of the programme by team members is critical. A designated proctor/mentor is also recommended. The organisation of structured training and simulation, as well as planning the initial cases are important steps to consider.

Economic Justification Analysis of Minimally Invasive versus Conventional Aortic Valve Replacement

There is no definitive consensus about the cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (AVR) (MI-AVR) compared to conventional AVR (C-AVR). The aim of this study was to compare the rate of postoperative complications and total hospital costs of MI-AVR versus C-AVR overall and by the type of aortic prosthesis (biological or mechanical). Our single-center retrospective study included 324 patients over 18 years old who underwent elective isolated primary AVR with standard stented AV prosthesis at the Institute for Cardiovascular Diseases "Dedinje" between January 2019 and December 2019. Reintervention, emergencies, combined surgical interventions, and patients with sutureless valves were excluded. In both MI-AVR and C-AVR, mechanical valve implantation contributed to overall reduction of hospital costs with equal efficacy. The cost-effectiveness ratio indicated that C-AVR is cheaper and yielded a better clinical outcome with mechanical valve implantation (67.17 vs. 69.5). In biological valve implantation, MI-AVR was superior. MI-AVR patients had statistically significantly higher LVEF and a lower Euro SCORE than C-AVR patients (Mann-Whitney U-test, p = 0.002 and p = 0.002, respectively). There is a slight advantage to MI-AVR vs. C-AVR, since it costs EUR 9.44 more to address complications that may arise. Complications (mortality, early reoperation, cerebrovascular insult, pacemaker implantation, atrial fibrillation, AV block, systemic inflammatory response syndrome, wound infection) were less frequent in the MI-AVR, making MI-AVR more economically justified than C-AVR (18% vs. 22.1%).

Mini-sternotomy versus full sternotomy for isolated aortic valve replacement: A single-center experience

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive approaches to isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR) are well-described and widely utilized. While there are numerous proposed benefits, there is limited literature describing significant morbidity or mortality benefits for minimally invasive isolated AVR resulting in hesitancy in its universal adoption. In this retrospective study, we compare the 5-year outcomes of patients undergoing isolated AVR via full sternotomy (FS) or mini-sternotomy (MS).

METHODS

756 patients underwent isolated AVR between 2014 and 2019. Propensity matching resulted in 142 matched pairs that received either FS or MS. The primary outcome was mortality during the follow-up period. Secondary outcomes included intraoperative variables and postoperative morbidity.

RESULTS

Intraoperative variables including total operative, cardiopulmonary bypass, and aortic cross-clamp times did not differ significantly between groups. Postoperative mortality was similar between the matched groups with nonsignificant differences at 30 days (2.12% vs. 1.4%, p = .657), 1 year (4.9% vs. 2.1%, p = .0.223), and 5 years (7.5% vs. 3.5%, p = .174). Rates of postoperative morbidity were comparable between groups with no significant differences.

CONCLUSION

This study examined the long-term outcomes of propensity-matched patients undergoing isolated AVR via FS or MS and identified no significant differences in outcomes over a 5-year follow-up period. The decision for surgical approach is multifactorial and should be decided on a case-by-case basis taking into consideration patient anatomy, surgeon experience, and comfort, as well as patient preference.

Both J- and L-shaped upper hemisternotomy approaches are suitable for total arch replacement with frozen elephant trunk in patients with Type A dissection

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive total arch replacement (TAR) with frozen elephant trunk (FET) implantation can be carried out through J-, L-, and inverted T-shaped upper ministernotomy. L- and inverted T-shaped upper ministernotomy are selected mostly for their better surgical view compared to J-shaped. However, few studies have paid attention to the difference in clinical effects between J- and L-shaped upper hemisternotomy in acute Type A aortic dissection (ATAAD).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 74 consecutive patients with ATAAD who underwent TAR with FET implantation between December 2019 and October 2020. Patients were divided into the L group (n = 31, L-shaped upper hemisternotomy) and the J group (n = 43, J-shaped upper hemisternotomy). Perioperative characteristics were recorded.

RESULTS

No significant difference was found in any of the pre-operative, post-operative, or follow-up variables between the two groups. However, the CPB establishment time in the J group was significantly shorter than that in the L group (65.0 ± 17.9 min vs. 77.9 ± 17.2 min, P < 0.05). Other intraoperative variables showed no significant difference.

CONCLUSION

Total arch replacement with frozen elephant trunk implantation is feasible and can be carried out safely through J-shaped or L-shaped incision. A J-shaped incision might be beneficial for single incision, while an L-shaped incision might be beneficial if an extra incision is required to achieve better artery perfusion.

Comparing mini-sternotomy to full median sternotomy for aortic valve replacement with propensity-matching methods

Objective

This study aims to compare clinical outcomes between mini-sternotomy and full median sternotomy for aortic valve replacement using propensity-matching methods.

Methods

From August 2014 to July 2021, a total of 1,445 patients underwent isolated aortic valve surgery, 1,247 via full median sternotomy and 198 via mini-sternotomy. To reduce the impact of potential confounding factors, a propensity score based on 18 variables is used to obtain 198 well-matched case pairs, which include 231 aortic valve regurgitations and 165 aortic stenosis cases.

Result

Occurrences of in-hospital mortality (P = 0.499), stroke (P > 0.999), renal failure (P = 0.760), and paravalvular leakage (P = 0.224) are similar between the two groups. No significant difference in operation, cardiopulmonary bypass, and aortic cross-clamp times are found between the two groups. However, compared with the full sternotomy group, the mini-sternotomy group has less postoperative 24-hour drainage (131.7 ± 82.8 ml, P < 0.001) and total drainage (459.3 ± 306.3 ml, P < 0.001). The median mechanical ventilation times are 9.4 [interquartile range (IQR) 5.4-15.6] and 9.8 (IQR 6.1-14.4) in mini-sternotomy and full sternotomy groups (P = 0.284), respectively. There are no significant differences in intensive care unit stay and postoperative stay between the two groups. For either aortic valve regurgitations or aortic stenosis patients, significantly less postoperative 24-h and total drainage are still found in the mini-sternotomy group compared with the full sternotomy group.

Conclusions

Mini-sternotomy for aortic valve replacement is a safe procedure, with not only cosmetic advantages but less postoperative drainage compared with full sternotomy. Mini-sternotomy should be considered for most aortic valve operations.

A Decision-Support Informatics Platform for Minimally Invasive Aortic Valve Replacement

Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement is performed by mini-sternotomy (MS) or less invasive right anterior mini-thoracotomy (RT). The possibility of adopting RT is assessed by anatomical criteria derived from manual 2D image analysis. We developed a semi-automatic tool (RT-PLAN) to assess the criteria of RT, extract other parameters of surgical interest and generate a view of the anatomical region in a 3D space. Twenty-five 3D CT images from a dataset were retrospectively evaluated. The methodology starts with segmentation to reconstruct 3D surface models of the aorta and anterior rib cage. Secondly, the RT criteria and geometric information from these models are automatically and quantitatively evaluated. A comparison is made between the values of the parameters measured by the standard manual 2D procedure and our tool. The RT-PLAN procedure was feasible in all cases. Strong agreement was found between RT-PLAN and the standard manual 2D procedure. There was no difference between the RT-PLAN and the standard procedure when selecting patients for the RT technique. The tool developed is able to effectively perform the assessment of the RT criteria, with the addition of a realistic visualisation of the surgical field through virtual reality technology.

Guidelines on enhanced recovery after cardiac surgery under cardiopulmonary bypass or off-pump

OBJECTIVE

To provide recommendations for enhanced recovery after cardiac surgery (ERACS) based on a multimodal perioperative medicine approach in adult cardiac surgery patients with the aim of improving patient satisfaction, reducing postoperative mortality and morbidity, and reducing the length of hospital stay.

DESIGN

A consensus committee of 20 experts from the French Society of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine (Société française d'anesthésie et de réanimation, SFAR) and the French Society of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery (Société française de chirurgie thoracique et cardio-vasculaire, SFCTCV) was convened. A formal conflict-of-interest policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. The entire guideline process was conducted independently of any industry funding. The authors were advised to follow the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to guide the assessment of the quality of evidence.

METHODS

Six fields were defined: (1) selection of the patient pathway and its information; (2) preoperative management and rehabilitation; (3) anaesthesia and analgesia for cardiac surgery; (4) surgical strategy for cardiac surgery and bypass management; (5) patient blood management; and (6) postoperative enhanced recovery. For each field, the objective of the recommendations was to answer questions formulated according to the PICO model (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome). Based on these questions, an extensive bibliographic search was carried out and analyses were performed using the GRADE approach. The recommendations were formulated according to the GRADE methodology and then voted on by all the experts according to the GRADE grid method.

RESULTS

The SFAR/SFCTCV guideline panel provided 33 recommendations on the management of patients undergoing cardiac surgery under cardiopulmonary bypass or off-pump. After three rounds of voting and several amendments, a strong agreement was reached for the 33 recommendations. Of these recommendations, 10 have a high level of evidence (7 GRADE 1+ and 3 GRADE 1-); 19 have a moderate level of evidence (15 GRADE 2+ and 4 GRADE 2-); and 4 are expert opinions. Finally, no recommendations were provided for 3 questions.

CONCLUSIONS

Strong agreement existed among the experts to provide recommendations to optimise the complete perioperative management of patients undergoing cardiac surgery.

Surgical outcomes associated with partial upper sternotomy in obese aortic disease patients

Background

Excellent partial upper sternotomy outcomes have been reported for patients undergoing aortic surgery, but whether this approach is particularly beneficial to obese patients remains to be established. This study was developed to explore the outcomes of aortic surgical procedures conducted via a partial upper sternotomy or a full median sternotomy approach in obese patients.

Methods

We retrospectively examined consecutive acute type A aortic dissection patients who underwent aortic surgery in our hospital between January 2015 to January 2021. Patients were divided into two groups based on body mass index: ‘non-obese’ and ‘obese’. We then further stratified patients in the obese and non-obese groups into partial upper sternotomy and full median sternotomy groups, with outcomes between these two sternotomy groups then being compared within and between these two body mass index groups.

Results

In total, records for 493 patients that had undergone aortic surgery were retrospectively reviewed, leading to the identification of 158 consecutive obese patients and 335 non-obese patients. Overall, 88 and 70 obese patients underwent full median sternotomy and partial upper sternotomy, respectively, while 180 and 155 non-obese patients underwent these respective procedures. There were no differences between the full median sternotomy and partial upper sternotomy groups within either BMI cohort with respect to preoperative baseline indicators and postoperative complications. Among non-obese individuals, the partial upper sternotomy approach was associated with reduced ventilation time (P = 0.003), shorter intensive care unit stay (P = 0.017), shorter duration of hospitalization (P = 0.001), and decreased transfusion requirements (Packed red blood cells: P < 0.001; Fresh frozen plasma: P < 0.001). Comparable findings were also evident among obese patients.

Conclusions

Obese aortic disease patients exhibited beneficial outcomes similar to those achieved for non-obese patients via a partial upper sternotomy approach which was associated with significant reductions in the duration of intensive care unit residency, duration of hospitalization, ventilator use, and transfusion requirements. This surgical approach should thus be offered to aortic disease patients irrespective of their body mass index.

Less invasive aortic valve replacement using the trifecta bioprosthesis

Objectives. The safety and effectiveness of the Trifecta GT bioprosthesis (introduced in 2016) in less invasive aortic valve replacement are scarcely investigated. Our aim was to evaluate the immediate and initial follow-up results of this device in the context of less invasive surgery. We discuss patient-specific strategies for the selection of the surgical approach. Methods. A retrospective review of 133 patients undergoing AVR with the Trifecta GT through three less invasive accesses (UMS, Upper ministernotomy; RMS, Reversed ministernotomy; RAMT, Right anterior minithoracotomy) was performed. In-hospital, follow-up and hemodynamic performance (PPM, Patient-prosthesis mismatch) data were collected. Results. Among patients, 79% received UMS, 11% RMS and 10% RAMT. Selection of approach was based on preoperative anatomical analysis (CT-scan) and planned concomitant procedures. There was no operative mortality, no valve-related adverse events. There were 36 concomitant procedures. No significant intergroup differences occurred in cardiopulmonary bypass, aortic clamp, mechanical ventilation time, ICU stay and average bleeding. There were two cases of moderate PPM (1.5%) and no instances of severe PPM; there were no significant (≥2/4) perivalvular leaks. Average mean gradient at discharge was 8 ± 3 mmHg. At follow-up (average: 2.5 ± 0.9 years, 100% complete, 315 patient years) there was no mortality and no valve-related adverse event. Hemodynamic performance was maintained at follow-up. Conclusions. The optimal device for less invasive AVR needs to be individualized, as well as the selection of the surgical approach. The use of the Trifecta GT bioprosthesis appears to be reproductible whatever less invasive approach is employed, with confirmed excellent hemodynamic performance.

Aortic valve replacement through minithoracotomy. Results from the Peruvian experience

Objectives

To assess mortality, major valve-related events (MAVRE), and other complications in the perioperative period and follow up in patients with aortic valve replacement (AVR) through mini-thoracotomy (MT).

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed patients aged <80 who underwent AVR through MT between January 2017 and December 2021 in a national reference center in Lima, Peru. Patients undergoing other surgical approaches (mini-sternotomy, etc.), other concomitant cardiac procedures, redo, and emergency surgeries were excluded. We measured the variables (MAVRE, mortality, and other clinical variables) at 30 days and a mean follow-up of 12 months.

Results

Fifty-four patients were studied, the median age was 69.5 years, and 65% were women. Aortic valve (AV) stenosis was the main indication for surgery (65%), and bicuspid AV represented 55.6% of cases. At 30-days, MAVRE occurred in two patients (3.7%), with no in-hospital mortality. One patient had an intraoperative ischemic stroke, and one required a permanent pacemaker. No patient underwent reoperation due to prosthesis dysfunction or endocarditis. In a mean follow-up of one year, MAVRE occurrence did not show variations with the perioperative period, most patients remained in NYHA I (90.7%) or II (7.4%) compared to the preoperative period (p<0.001).

Conclusions

AV replacement through MT is a safe procedure in our center for patients under 80 years.

Minimally Invasive versus Full Sternotomy SAVR in the Era of TAVR: An Institutional Review

In the era of advancing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) technology, traditional open surgery remains a valuable intervention for patients who are not TAVR candidates. We sought to compare perioperative variables and postoperative outcomes of minimally invasive and full sternotomy surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) at a single institution. A retrospective analysis of 113 patients who underwent isolated SAVR via full sternotomy or upper hemi-sternotomy between January 2015 and December 2019 at the University of Utah Hospital was performed. Preoperative comorbidities and demographic information were not different among groups, with the exception of diabetes, which was significantly more common in the full sternotomy group (p = 0.01). Median procedure length was numerically shorter in the minimally invasive group but was not significant following the Bonferroni correction (p = 0.047). Other perioperative variables were not significantly different. The two groups showed no difference in the incidence of postoperative adverse events (p = 0.879). As such, minimally invasive SAVR via hemi-sternotomy remains a safe and effective alternative to full sternotomy for patients who meet the criteria for aortic valve replacement.

Conventional Versus Minimally Invasive Aortic Valve Replacement Surgery: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Meta-Regression

Objective: To assess the potential benefits of minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MIAVR) compared with conventional AVR (CAVR) by examining short-term outcomes. Methods: A systematic search identified randomized trials comparing MIAVR with CAVR. To assess study limitations and quality of evidence, we used the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and GRADE and performed random-effects meta-analysis. We used meta-regression and sensitivity analysis to explore reasons for diversity. Results: Thirteen studies (1,303 patients) were included. For the comparison of MIAVR and CAVR, the risk of bias was judged low or unclear and the quality of evidence ranged from very low to moderate. No significant difference was observed in mortality, stroke, acute kidney failure, infectious outcomes, cardiac events, intubation time, intensive care unit stay, reoperation for bleeding, and blood transfusions. Blood loss (mean difference [MD] = -130.58 mL, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -216.34 to -44.82, I² = 89%) and hospital stay (MD = -0.93 days, 95% CI = -1.62 to -0.23, I² = 81%) were lower with MIAVR. There were shorter aortic cross-clamp (MD = 5.99 min, 95% CI = 0.99 to 10.98, I² = 93%) and cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) times (MD = 7.75 min, 95% CI = 0.27 to 15.24, I² = 94%) in the CAVR group. In meta-regression analysis, we found that age was the variable with the greatest influence on heterogeneity. Conclusions: MIAVR seems to be an excellent alternative to CAVR, reducing hospital stay and incidence of hemorrhagic events. Despite significantly greater aortic cross-clamp and CPB times with MIAVR, this did not translate into adverse effects, with no changes in the results found with CAVR.

Converging rapid deployment prostheses with minimal access surgery: analysis of early outcomes

Background

Sutureless prostheses may have added benefit when combined with minimal access surgery, although this has not been fully assessed in the literature. This study aims to provide a comparative analysis of the Perceval valve comparing median sternotomy (MS) with mini-sternotomy (MIS).

Methods

A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data was conducted for all isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR), using the Perceval valve, for severe aortic stenosis cases in the period 2014 to 2019. Patients undergoing concomitant valve or revascularisation surgery were excluded.

Results

A total of 78 patients were included: MS group 41; MIS group 37. Operatively, bypass times were comparable between MS and MIS groups (mean 89.3 vs 83.4, p = 0.307), as were aortic cross clamp times (58.4 vs 55.9, p = 0.434). There were no operative deaths or new onset post-operative neurology. MIS was a predictor of reduced stay in the intensive care unit (coef − 3.25, 95% CI [− 4.93, − 0.59], p = 0.036) and hospital stay overall (p = 0.004). Blood transfusion units were comparable as were the incidence of heart block (n = 5 vs n = 3, p = 0.429) and new onset atrial fibrillation (n = 15 vs n = 9, p = 0.250). Follow-up echocardiography found a significant improvement in effective orifice area, left ventricular dimension and volume indices, and LVEF (p > 0.05) for all patients. Multivariate analysis found mini-sternotomy to be a predictor for reduced LV diastolic volume (coef − 0.35, 95% CI [− 1.02, − 0.05], p = 0.05).

Conclusions

The combination of minimal access surgery and sutureless AVR may enhance patient recovery and provide early LV remodelling.

Minimally invasive and full sternotomy in aortic valve replacement: a comparative early operative outcomes

Introduction

aortic valve replacement is usually performed through a median full sternotomy (MFS) in our department. Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MIAVR) has been recently adopted as a new approach. According to the literature, the superiority of MIAVR is controversial. In this study we report early post-operative outcomes in MIAVR compared with MFS access with reference to blood Loss, wound infections, post-operative recovery, morbidity and mortality.

Methods

this study was a prospective data collection from 36 consecutive patients undergoing isolated valve replacement. Two population study was identified, MIAVR group (group I n=18) and MFS group (group II n=18). Patients´ data were collected and analyzed using IBM SPSS statistics 21 software and Khi2 test has been used to compare the variables. The study variables are presented as numbers, percentage, median with interquartile range. Pre-operative planning was performed so that to obtain similar characteristics.

Results

in group I, upper mini-sternotomy was used in 12 patients and right mini-thoracotomy in 6 patients. There was no difference in term of mortality and morbidity. MIAVR was associated with longer CPB time (93.25 (58-161) vs 131 (75-215) mins, P=0.047) with no significant difference in term of ACC time (81 (33-162) vs 58.8 (59-102) mins P=0.158). MIAVR´ Patients had likely lower incidence of red blood cells transfusion (16.7 vs 52.3%) without significant difference about post-operative haemoglobin (P = 0,330). Patients in group I had shorter ventilation time (2.35 (1-12) vs 9.3 (1-48) hours P < 0.01), shorter ICU stay (2.44 (1-8) vs 4.25 (1-9) days, P = 0,024). The length of hospital stay was shorter, 6.5 (5-9) days in group I vs 7.4 (6-11), P=0.0274. Length of chest tube stay was shorter in group I (mean 1.53 vs 2.4 days, P=0,033). Wound infections were not found in both groups.

Conclusion

minimally invasive aortic valve replacement is associated with less blood loss, faster post-operative recovery faster post-operative recovery but increase operation time.

Right Anterolateral Thoracotomy Versus Sternotomy for Resection of Benign Atrial Masses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Primary benign cardiac tumors are rare disease entity that predominantly originate from the atria. Benign masses can induce heart failure, arrhythmia, or thromboembolic events. Therefore, surgical excision is often indicated. Current guidelines on the preferred approaches for resection (i.e., median sternotomy [MST] or right anterolateral thoracotomy [RAT]) are lacking. The aim of the current meta-analysis was to evaluate all studies comparing RAT to MST for excision of benign atrial masses in terms of safety, efficacy, and complications.

METHODS

The PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched through 9 June 2020. Data regarding mortality, complications, recurrence, ICU stay, and length of hospital stay were extracted and submitted to meta-analysis using random effects modelling. Heterogeneity was assessed by the I ² test.

RESULTS

Four retrospective observational studies were included, including 196 patients (RAT n = 97, MST n = 99). Mortality was 0% in both groups. Recurrence was <1% in the RAT group and 0% in the MST group. Complication rate tended to be lower in favor of the RAT group. Furthermore, RAT was associated with lower length of ICU stay (-17.7 hr, P = 0.01) and hospital stay (-4.0 days, P < 0.001). No significant differences in cardiopulmonary bypass (P = 0.09) and cross-clamp times (P = 0.15) were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

The RAT approach is as safe and effective as MST for the excision of benign atrial masses. Moreover, RAT is associated with a reduced complication rate and a reduced duration of hospitalization and could be considered as the preferred approach in anatomically suitable patients.

J-ministernotomy for aortic valve replacement: a retrospective cohort study

Background

The advantage of minimally invasive sternotomy (MS) over full sternotomy (FS) for isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR) is still controversial. We aimed to examine if J-shaped MS is a safe alternative to FS in patients undergoing primary isolated AVR. This study is a retrospective and restricted cohort study that included 137 patients who had primary isolated AVR from February 2013 to June 2015. Patients with previous cardiac operations, low ejection fraction (< 40%), infective endocarditis, EuroSCORE II predicted mortality > 10%, and patients who had inverted T or inverted C-MS or right anterior thoracotomy were excluded. Patients were grouped into the FS group (n=65) and MS group (n=72). Preoperative variables were comparable in both groups. The outcome was studied, balancing the groups by propensity score matching.

Results

Seven (9%) patients in the MS group were converted to FS. Cardiopulmonary bypass (98.5 ± 29.3 vs. 82.1 ± 13.95 min; p ≤ 0.001) and ischemic times (69.1 ± 23.8 vs. 59.6 ± 12.2 min; p = 0.001) were longer in MS. The MS group had a shorter duration of mechanical ventilation (10.1 ± 11.58 vs. 10.9 ± 6.43 h; p = 0.045), ICU stay (42.74 ± 40.5 vs. 44.9 ± 39.3; p = 0.01), less chest tube drainage (385.3 ± 248.6 vs. 635.9 ± 409.6 ml; p = 0.001), and lower narcotics use (25.14 ± 17.84 vs. 48.23 ± 125.68 mg; p < 0.001). No difference was found in postoperative heart block with permanent pacemaker insertion or atrial fibrillation between groups (p = 0.16 and 0.226, respectively). Stroke, renal failure, and mortality did not differ between the groups. Reintervention-free survival at 1, 3, and 4 years was not significantly different in both groups (p = 0.73).

Conclusion

J-ministernotomy could be a safe alternative to FS in isolated primary AVR. Besides the cosmetic advantage, it could have better clinical outcomes without added risk.

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.

Minimally invasive access type related to outcomes of sutureless and rapid deployment valves

OBJECTIVES

Minimally invasive surgical techniques with optimal outcomes are of paramount importance. Sutureless and rapid deployment aortic valves are increasingly implanted via minimally invasive approaches. We aimed to analyse the procedural outcomes of a full sternotomy (FS) compared with those of minimally invasive cardiac surgery (MICS) and further assess MICS, namely ministernotomy (MS) and anterior right thoracotomy (ART).

METHODS

We selected all isolated aortic valve replacements in the Sutureless and Rapid Deployment Aortic Valve Replacement International Registry (SURD-IR, n = 2257) and performed propensity score matching to compare aortic valve replacement through FS or MICS (n = 508/group) as well as through MS and ART accesses (n = 569/group).

RESULTS

Postoperative mortality was 1.6% in FS and MICS patients who had a mean logistic EuroSCORE of 11%. Cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) times were shorter in the FS group than in the MICS group (mean difference 3.2 and 9.2 min; P < 0.001). Patients undergoing FS had a higher rate of acute kidney injury (5.6% vs 2.8%; P = 0.012). Direct comparison of MS and ART revealed longer mean cross-clamp and CPB times (12 and 16.7 min) in the ART group (P < 0.001). The postoperative outcome revealed a higher stroke rate (3.2% vs 1.2%; P = 0.043) as well as a longer postoperative intensive care unit [2 (1-3) vs 1 (1-3) days; P = 0.009] and hospital stay [11 (8-16) vs 8 (7-12) days; P < 0.001] in the MS group than in the ART group.

CONCLUSIONS

According to this non-randomized international registry, FS resulted in a higher rate of acute kidney injury. The ART access showed a lower stroke rate than MS and a shorter hospital stay than all other accesses. All these findings may be related to underlying patient risk factors.