Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement provides equivalent outcomes at reduced cost compared with conventional aortic valve replacement: A real-world multi-institutional analysis

Modernization of Cardiac Advanced Life Support: Role and Value of Cardiothoracic Anesthesiologist Intensivist in Post-Cardiac Surgery Arrest Resuscitation

Cardiac arrest in the postoperative cardiac surgery patient requires a unique set of management skills that deviates from traditional cardiopulmonary resuscitation and Advanced Cardiovascular Life Support (ACLS). Cardiac Advanced Life Support (CALS) was first proposed in 2005 to address these intricacies. The hallmark of CALS is early chest reopening and internal cardiac massage within 5 minutes of the cardiac arrest in patients unresponsive to basic life support. Since the introduction of CALS, the landscape of cardiac surgery has continued to evolve. Cardiac intensivists encounter more patients who undergo cardiac surgical procedures performed via minimally invasive techniques such as lateral thoracotomy or mini sternotomy, in which an initial bedside sternotomy for cardiac massage is not applicable. Given the heterogeneous nature of the patient population in the cardiothoracic intensive care unit, personnel must expeditiously identify the most appropriate rescue strategy. As such, we have proposed a modified CALS approach to (1) adapt to a newer generation of cardiac surgery patients and (2) incorporate advanced resuscitative techniques. These include rescue-focused cardiac ultrasound to aid in the early identification of underlying pathology and guide resuscitation and early institution of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation instead of chest reopening. While these therapies are not immediately available in all cardiac surgery centers, we hope this creates a framework to revise guidelines to include these recommendations to improve outcomes and how cardiac anesthesiologist intensivists' evolving role can aid resuscitation.

Midterm Outcomes of Right Anterior Mini Thoracotomy Aortic Valve Replacement

Background

Contemporary surgical approaches for aortic valve replacement (AVR) include full median sternotomy, hemi-sternotomy, and a right anterior mini thoracotomy (RAMT) approach. We report the midterm outcomes of RAMT for isolated AVR.

Methods

A retrospective study was conducted, reporting the midterm outcomes of patients who underwent isolated RAMT AVR. The primary outcomes were death and disabling stroke within 30-days of surgery. The secondary outcomes were survival at latest follow-up assessment, hospital readmission for aortic valve disease, prosthetic valve function, and incidence of structural valve deterioration requiring reintervention on the aortic valve.

Results

Seventy patients underwent isolated RAMT AVR between February 2016 and February 2018. One patient died from a cardiac cause within 30 days of surgery, whereas none experienced disabling postoperative strokes. The mean follow-up period for the cohort was 74.46 ± 7.54 months. At 95 months, a total of 49 patients were alive. During the follow-up period, 2 patients underwent median sternotomy, 1 for mitral valve replacement and tricuspid repair, and 1 for coronary artery bypass grafting. At last follow-up assessment, the average mean transvalvular gradient was 12.11 ± 9.15 mm Hg. One patient developed prosthetic valve infective endocarditis, and 1 patient was found to have prosthetic valve thrombosis. Prosthetic valve function was normal in 66 patients. At 95 months, freedom from aortic valve reintervention was 98.6%, as 1 patient required redo aortic root surgery.

Conclusions

RAMT AVR can be done safely in the appropriate patient population. Midterm outcomes at our centre are promising, and they suggest that this approach is a good option for managing aortic stenosis.

Right Anterior Minithoracotomy Approach for Aortic Valve Replacement

By sparing the sternum, the right anterior minithoracotomy (RAMT) approach may facilitate a quicker functional recovery when compared with conventional aortic valve replacement (AVR). In the following review, outcomes after RAMT AVR are compared with full sternotomy AVR. The RAMT approach is described, including suggestions for patient selection. The application of the RAMT approach for other cardiac procedures is also discussed.

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.

Minimal Learning Curve for Minimally Invasive Aortic Valve Replacement

BACKGROUND

 Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MiAVR) is an established technique for surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR). Although MiAVR was first described in 1993 and has shown good results compared with full sternotomy AVR (FSAVR) only a minority of patients undergo MiAVR. We recently started using MiAVR via an upper hemisternotomy. We aimed to examine the early results of our initial experience with this technique.

METHODS

 We compared 55 MiAVR patients with a historical cohort of 142 isolated FSAVR patients (December 2016-December 2022). The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and cross-clamp times, blood product intake, in-hospital morbidity, and length of intensive care unit and hospital stay.

RESULTS

 There was no significant difference in preoperative characteristics, including age, laboratory values, and comorbidities. There was no significant difference between the groups regarding in-hospital mortality (FSAVR 3.52 vs. MiAVR 1.82%). There was no significant difference in CPB time (FSAVR 103.5 [interquartile range: 82-119.5] vs. MiAVR 107 min [92.5-120]), aortic cross-clamp time (FSAVR 81 [66-92] vs. MiAVR 90 min [73-99]), and valve size (FSAVR 23 [21-25] vs. MiAVR 23 [21-25]). The incidence of intraoperative blood products transfusion was significantly lower in the MiAVR group (10.91%) compared with the FSAVR group (25.35%, p = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

 Our findings further establish the possibility of reducing invasiveness of AVR without compromising patient safety and clinical outcomes. This is true even in the learning curve period and without requiring any significant change in the operative technique and dedicated equipment.

Postoperative quality of life and pain after upper hemisternotomy and conventional median sternotomy for aortic valve replacement: results of a randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

Surgical aortic valve replacement through conventional sternotomy yields excellent results. Minimally invasive techniques are deemed equally safe and serve as a viable and less traumatic alternative. However, it is unclear how both surgical techniques affect patient-reported outcomes. The objective of this trial is to compare postoperative cardiac-related quality of life and postoperative pain after upper hemisternotomy and conventional surgical aortic valve replacement.

METHODS

In this single-centre, open-label, investigator-initiated randomized clinical trial, patients were randomized to upper hemisternotomy or conventional full median sternotomy. Patients unable to undergo randomization were monitored prospectively (registry group). Primary outcome was cardiac-specific quality of life, measured with the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire up to 1 year postoperatively.

RESULTS

Patients undergoing upper hemisternotomy had a significantly higher physical limitation domain score across all postoperative time points than patients undergoing conventional surgical aortic valve replacement (estimated mean difference 2.12 points; P = 0.014). Patients undergoing upper hemisternotomy were more likely to have a pain score <30 the first 2 days postoperatively than patients undergoing conventional surgical aortic valve replacement (odds ratio 2.63; P = 0.007). This was associated with reduced opioid analgesic intake. Postoperative surgical outcome did not differ between both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical aortic valve replacement through both conventional sternotomy and upper hemisternotomy resulted in clinically similar and important improvements in quality of life, with a small advantage for upper hemisternotomy, while there was no compromise in safety.

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.

Minimal Access Aortic Valve Surgery

Minimally invasive approaches to the aortic valve have been described since 1993, with great hopes that they would become universal and facilitate day-case cardiac surgery. The literature has shown that these procedures can be undertaken with equivalent mortality rates, similar operative times, comparable costs, and some benefits regarding hospital length of stay. The competing efforts of transcatheter aortic valve implantation for these same outcomes have provided an excellent range of treatment options for patients from cardiology teams. We describe the current state of the art, including technical considerations, caveats, and complications of minimal access aortic surgery and predict future directions in this space.

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%).

Safety and Efficacy of the Transaxillary Access for Minimally Invasive Aortic Valve Surgery

Background and Objectives: Transaxillary access is one of the latest innovations for minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MICS-AVR). This study compares clinical performance in a large transaxillary MICS-AVR group to a propensity-matched sternotomy control group. Materials and Methods: This study enrolled 908 patients undergoing isolated AVR with a mean age of 69.4 ± 18.0 years, logistic EuroSCORE of 4.0 ± 3.9%, and body mass index (BMI) of 27.3 ± 6.1 kg/m2. The treatment group comprised 454 consecutive transaxillary MICS-AVR patients. The control group was 1:1 propensity-matched out of 3115 consecutive sternotomy aortic valve surgeries. Endocarditis, redo, and combined procedures were excluded. The multivariate matching model included age, left ventricular ejection fraction, logistic EuroSCORE, pulmonary hypertension, coronary artery disease, chronic lung disease, and BMI. Results: Propensity-matching was successful with subsequent comparable clinical baselines in both groups. MICS-AVR had longer skin-to-skin time (120.0 ± 31.5 min vs. 114.2 ± 28.7 min; p < 0.001) and more frequent bleeding requiring chest reopening (5.0% vs. 2.4%; p < 0.010), but significantly less packed red blood cell transfusions (0.57 ± 1.6 vs. 0.82 ± 1.6; p = 0.040). In addition, MICS-AVR patients had fewer access site wound abnormalities (1.5% vs. 3.7%; p = 0.038), shorter intensive care unit stays (p < 0.001), shorter ventilation times (p < 0.001), and shorter hospital stays (7.0 ± 5.1 days vs. 11.1 ± 6.5; p < 0.001). No significant differences were observed in stroke > Rankin 2 (0.9% vs. 1.1%; p = 0.791), renal replacement therapy (1.5% vs. 2.4%; p = 0.4762), and hospital mortality (0.9% vs. 1.5%; p = 0.546). Conclusions: Transaxillary MICS-AVR is at least as safe as AVR by sternotomy and can be performed in the same time frame. Its advantages are fewer transfusions and quicker postoperative recovery with a significantly shorter hospital stay. The cosmetic result and unrestricted physical abilities due to the untouched sternum and ribs are unique advantages of transaxillary access.

Enhanced recovery after minimally invasive heart valve surgery: Early and midterm outcomes

BACKGROUND

Although the use of protocols for "enhanced recovery after surgery" (ERAS) have been associated with improved results in different surgical specialties, only a few data are available for ERAS in cardiac surgery. This study aimed to compare 30-day outcomes of patients undergoing ultra-fast-track minimally invasive valve surgery (UFT-MIVS) versus conventional MIVS (c-MIVS).

METHODS

The key features of UFT-MIVS approach involves: 1) less invasive valve surgery techniques, 2) normothermic cardiopulmonary bypass management, 3) UFT-anesthesia with table extubation, 4) immediate rehabilitation therapy and patient-family contact. Five-hundred and seventy-six consecutive patients who underwent aortic or mitral MIVS were analyzed (2016-2020). Treatment selection bias (UFT-MIVS vs. c-MIVS) was addressed by the use of propensity score (PS) matching. After PS-matching 2 well-balanced groups of 152 patients each were created.

RESULTS

In the matched cohort, the overall 30-day mortality and stroke rates were 0.3% and 0.7%, respectively, with no difference between groups. UFT-MIVS resulted in lower rates of respiratory insufficiency and agitation/delirium compared with c-MIVS. Patients receiving UFT-MIVS were associated with significantly shorter intensive care unit length of stay and hospital stay.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study confirms that MIVS is associated with excellent results in terms of early mortality and major postoperative complications rates. The implementation of UFT-MIVS protocol showed to be safe and was associated with improved clinical outcomes in regard to respiratory insufficiency, delirium and lengths of stay.

Early Discharge After Minimally Invasive Aortic and Mitral Valve Surgery

BACKGROUND

We investigated patient outcomes in relation to their postoperative length of stay after minimally invasive valve surgery.

METHODS

All adults who survived elective, uncomplicated minimally invasive aortic or mitral valve surgery at a single center between 2012 and 2019 were classified by postoperative length of stay: early discharge (≤3 days) or late discharge (>3 days). The trend in early discharge was investigated over the study period, predictors of early discharge were identified using multivariate logistic regression modeling, and 1:1 propensity score matching was used to determine which patients in the late-discharge cohort had similar health to patients discharged early. Adjusted outcomes of 30-day mortality, readmission, and direct costs were analyzed.

RESULTS

Among 1262 consecutive patients undergoing minimally invasive valve surgery, 618 were elective and uncomplicated, 25% (n = 162) of whom were discharged early. The proportion of early-discharge patients increased over time (P for trend < .05). A history of congestive heart failure, stroke, or smoking and higher Society of Thoracic Surgeons predictive risk of mortality score negatively predicted early discharge (P < .05). Propensity score matching identified 101 (22%) late-discharge patients comparable with early-discharge patients. Adjusted 30-day mortality and readmission rates were comparable between cohorts. The median direct costs per patient ($20,046 vs $22,124, P < .05) were significantly lower in the early-discharge cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

In well-selected patients early discharge after minimally invasive valve surgery was associated with lower costs but comparable postoperative outcomes. About one-fifth of patients who remain in the hospital beyond postoperative day 3 may be candidates for earlier discharge.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Anatomical circumstances and aortic cross-clamp time in minimally invasive aortic valve replacement

OBJECTIVES

Prolonged operative times, potentially leading to increased morbidity, are a possible drawback of minimally invasive aortic valve replacement. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of anatomical circumstances in the chest on aortic cross-clamp time.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 68 patients who underwent minimally invasive aortic valve replacement with the Perceval sutureless valve via right-anterior thoracotomy or with ministernotomy. Anatomical variables were measured during preoperative computer tomography scans.

RESULTS

Aortic cross-clamp time was shorter in those having ministernotomy than in the right-anterior thoracotomy group (41.1 vs 52.3 min; P < 0.001). Cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time was not significantly different between groups (P = 0.09). A multivariable linear-regression model (P = 0.018) showed the aortic dextroposition variable to be a significant predictor of the aortic cross-clamp method and CPB times (P = 0.005 and P = 0.003) independent of other anatomical variables in the right thoracotomy group (10 mm deviation from optimal position prolonged the times for 240 and 600 s). For the whole cohort, a correlation between aortic valve dimensions and operative times was found (P = 0.046, P = 0.009). A linear-regression model (P = 0.046) predicted 90 s longer aortic cross-clamp time and 231 s longer CPB time for every 1 mm smaller aortic valve diameter.

CONCLUSIONS

The anatomical variables are associated with the operative times in minimally invasive aortic valve replacement with sutureless valves. Considering this association, preplanning the procedure is recommended.

Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement: short-term efficacy of sutureless compared with stented bioprostheses

OBJECTIVES

Sutureless aortic valve prostheses have been introduced to facilitate the implant process, speed up the operating time and improve haemodynamic performance. The goal of this study was to assess the potential advantages of using sutureless prostheses during minimally invasive aortic valve replacement in a large multicentre population.

METHODS

From 2011 to 2019, a total of 3402 patients in 11 hospitals underwent isolated aortic valve replacement with minimal access approaches using a bioprosthesis. A total of 475 patients received sutureless valves; 2927 received standard valves. The primary outcome was the incidence of 30-day deaths. Secondary outcomes were the occurrence of major complications following procedures performed with sutureless or standard bioprostheses. Propensity matched comparisons was performed based on a multivariable logistic regression model.

RESULTS

The annual number of sutureless valve implants increased over the years. The matching procedure paired 430 sutureless with 860 standard aortic valve replacements. A total of 0.7% and 2.1% patients with sutureless and standard prostheses, respectively, died within 30 days (P = 0.076). Cross-clamp times [48 (40-62) vs 63 min (48-74); P = 0.001] and need for blood transfusions (27.4% vs 33.5%; P = 0.022) were lower in patients with sutureless valves. No difference in permanent pacemaker insertions was observed in the overall population (3.3% vs 4.4% in the standard and sutureless groups; P = 0.221) and in the matched groups (3.6% vs 4.7% in the standard and sutureless groups; P = 0.364).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of sutureless prostheses is advantageous and facilitates the adoption of a minimally invasive approach, reducing cardiac arrest time and the number of blood transfusions. No increased risk of permanent pacemaker insertion was observed.

Current Therapeutic Options in Aortic Stenosis

Aortic stenosis is the most common valvular disease requiring valve replacement. Valve replacement therapies have undergone progressive evolution since the 1960s. Over the last 20 years, transcatheter aortic valve replacement has radically transformed the care of aortic stenosis, such that it is now the treatment of choice for many, particularly elderly, patients. This review provides an overview of the pathophysiology, presentation, diagnosis, indications for intervention, and current therapeutic options for aortic stenosis.

Minimally-invasive versus transcatheter aortic valve implantation: systematic review with meta-analysis of propensity-matched studies

Background

Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MiAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) provide aortic valve replacement (AVR) by less invasive methods than conventional surgical AVR, by avoiding complete sternotomy. This study directly compares and analyses the available evidence for early outcomes between these two AVR methods.

Methods

Electronic databases were searched from inception until August 2019 for studies comparing MiAVR to TAVI, according to predefined search criteria. Propensity-matched studies with sufficient data were included in a meta-analysis.

Results

Eight studies with 9,744 patients were included in the quantitative analysis. Analysis of risk-matched patients showed no difference in early mortality (RR 0.76, 95% CI, 0.37–1.54, P=0.44). MiAVR had a signal towards lower rate of postoperative stroke, although this did not reach statistical significance (OR 0.42, 95% CI, 0.13–1.29, P=0.13). MiAVR had significantly lower rates of new pacemaker (PPM) requirement (OR 0.29, 95% CI, 0.16–0.52, P<0.0001) and postoperative aortic insufficiency (AI) or paravalvular leak (PVL) (OR 0.05, 95% CI, 0.01–0.20, P<0.0001) compared to TAVI, (OR 0.42, 95% CI, 0.13–1.29, P=0.13), while acute kidney injury (AKI) was higher in MiAVR compared to TAVI (11.1% vs. 5.2%, OR 2.28, 95% CI, 1.25–4.16, P=0.007).

Conclusions

In patients of equivalent surgical risk scores, MiAVR may be performed with lower rates of postoperative PPM requirement and AI/PVL, higher rates of AKI and no statistical difference in postoperative stroke or short-term mortality, compared to TAVI. Further prospective trials are needed to validate these results.

Mini-sternotomy versus conventional sternotomy for aortic valve replacement: a randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare clinical and health economic outcomes after manubrium-limited mini-sternotomy (intervention) and conventional median sternotomy (usual care).

DESIGN

A single-blind, randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

Single centre UK National Health Service tertiary hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR) surgery.

INTERVENTIONS

Intervention was manubrium-limited mini-sternotomy performed using a 5-7 cm midline incision. Usual care was median sternotomy performed using a midline incision from the sternal notch to the xiphisternum.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who received a red cell transfusion postoperatively and within 7 days of index surgery. Secondary outcomes included proportion of patients receiving a non-red cell blood component transfusion and number of units transfused within 7 days and during index hospital stay, quality of life and cost-effectiveness analyses.

RESULTS

270 patients were randomised, received surgery and contributed to the intention to treat analysis. No difference between mini and conventional sternotomy in red-cell transfusion within 7 days was found; 23/135 patients in each arm received a transfusion, OR 1.0 (95% CI 0.5 to 2.0) and risk difference 0.0 (95% CI -0.1 to 0.1). Mini-sternotomy reduced chest drain losses (mean 181.6 mL (SD 138.7) vs conventional, mean 306·9 mL (SD 348.6)); this did not reduce red-cell transfusions. Mean valve size and postoperative valve function were comparable between mini-sternotomy and conventional groups; 23 mm vs 24 mm and 6/134 moderate or severe aortic regurgitation vs 3/130, respectively. Mini-sternotomy resulted in longer bypass (82.7 min (SD 23.5) vs 59.6 min (SD 15.1)) and cross-clamp times (64.1 min (SD 17.1) vs 46·3 min (SD 10.7)). Conventional sternotomy was more cost-effective with only a 5.8% probability of mini-sternotomy being cost-effective at a willingness to pay of £20 000/QALY (Quality Adjusted Life Years).

CONCLUSIONS

AVR via mini-sternotomy did not reduce red blood cell transfusion within 7 days following surgery when compared with conventional sternotomy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN29567910; Results.

Assessment of pain, anxiety and depression, and quality of life after minimally invasive aortic surgery

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive cardiac surgery may reduce surgical trauma, diminish postoperative pain and improve quality of life (QOL). The aim of this study is to assess pain, hospital anxiety and depression scale (HADS), and QOL in patients undergoing minimally invasive aortic surgery.

METHODS

This is a prospective, single-center cohort study of 24 consecutive patients undergoing upper ministernotomy aortic valve, aortic root, and concomitant aortic valve and ascending aorta replacement. Visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores and HADS and Short-Form-36 (SF-36) questionnaires were evaluated at preoperative baseline, during hospitalization, and at 1 and 3 months postoperatively.

RESULTS

At discharge, the average VAS pain score was significantly lower than postoperative Day 1 (2.7 ± 0.4 vs. 6.5 ± 0.4; p ≤ .001). By 1 month, the pain scores were not significantly different from baseline (1.7 ± 0.4 vs. 1.0 ± 0.4; p = 1.000), and by 3 months, pain scores returned to baseline (1.0 ± 0.4; p = 1.000). HADS scores show that compared with preoperative baseline, average anxiety scores decreased by 1 month (3.1 ± 0.7 vs. 4.3 ± 0.6; p = 1.000) and decreased significantly by 3 months (1.8 ± 0.7 vs. 4.3 ± 0.6; p = .012). Additionally, depression scores were unchanged at 1 month (3.0 ± 0.4 vs. 3.1. ± 0.4; p = 1.000) and decreased by 3 months (1.3 ± 0.5 vs. 3.0 ± 0.4; p = .060). SF-36 scores revealed no changes in scores in 7 of 8 domains at 1 month and a significant increase in "physical functioning," "energy," and "general health" domains compared to preoperative baseline at 3 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Following minimally invasive aortic surgery, VAS pain scores, HADS and scores in 7 of 8 SF-36 domains returned to preoperative baseline or improved compared to preoperative baseline at 1 month. At 3 months, scores in 3 of 8 SF-36 domains significantly improved compared to preoperative baseline. Larger studies are necessary for further investigation.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Patients With Severe Aortic Valve Stenosis at Low Surgical Risk: A Health Technology Assessment

BACKGROUND

Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is the conventional treatment for patients with severe aortic valve stenosis at low surgical risk. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a less invasive procedure. We conducted a health technology assessment (HTA) of TAVI for patients with severe aortic valve stenosis at low surgical risk, which included an evaluation of effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness, the budget impact of publicly funding TAVI, and patient preferences and values.

METHODS

We used the 2016 Health Quality Ontario HTA on TAVI² as a source of eligible studies and performed a systematic literature search for studies published since the 2016 review. Eligible primary studies identified both through the 2016 HTA and through our complementary literature search were used in a de novo analysis. We assessed the risk of bias of each included study using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and the quality of the body of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria.An applicable, previously conducted cost-effectiveness analysis was available, so we did not conduct a primary economic evaluation. We analyzed the budget impact of publicly funding TAVI in people at low surgical risk in Ontario. We also performed a literature survey of the quantitative evidence of preferences and values of patients for TAVI. The Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) conducted a review to evaluate the qualitative literature on patient and provider preferences and values for TAVI. To contextualize the potential value of TAVI, we spoke with people with severe aortic valve stenosis.

RESULTS

We identified two randomized controlled trials that compared TAVI (transfemoral route) and SAVR in patients with severe aortic valve stenosis at low surgical risk. Both studies have an ongoing follow-up of 10 years, but 1-year and limited 2-year follow-up results are currently available. At 30 days, compared with SAVR, TAVI had a slightly lower risk of mortality (risk difference -0.8%, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.5% to -0.1%, GRADE: Moderate) and disabling stroke (risk difference -0.8%, 95% CI -1.8% to -0.2%, GRADE: Moderate), and resulted in more patients with symptom improvement (risk difference 11.8%, 95% CI 8.2% to 15.5%, GRADE: High) and in a greater improvement in quality of life (GRADE: High). At 1 year, TAVI and SAVR were similar with regard to mortality (GRADE: Low), although TAVI may result in a slightly lower risk of disabling stroke (GRADE: Moderate). Both TAVI and SAVR resulted in a similar improvement in symptoms and quality of life at 1 year (GRADE: Moderate). Compared with SAVR, TAVI had a higher risk of some complications and a lower risk of others.Device-related costs for TAVI (about $25,000) are higher than for SAVR (about $6,000). A published cost-effectiveness analysis conducted from an Ontario Ministry of Health perspective showed TAVI to be more expensive and, on average, slightly more effective (i.e., it was associated with more quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]) than SAVR. Compared with SAVR, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were $27,196 per QALY and $59,641 per QALY for balloon-expandable and self-expanding TAVI, respectively. Balloon-expandable TAVI was less costly (by $2,330 on average) and slightly more effective (by 0.02 QALY on average) than self-expanding TAVI. Among the three interventions, balloon-expandable TAVI had the highest probability of being cost-effective. It was the preferred option in 53% and 59% of model iterations, at willingness-to-pay values of $50,000 and $100,000 per QALY, respectively. Self-expanding TAVI was preferred in less than 10% of iterations. The budget impact of publicly funding TAVI in Ontario is estimated to be an additional $5 to $8 million each year for the next 5 years. The budget impact could be significantly reduced with reductions in the device price.We did not find any quantitative or qualitative evidence on patient preferences and values specific to the low-risk surgical group. Among a mixed or generally high-risk and population, people typically preferred the less invasive nature and the faster recovery time of TAVI compared with SAVR, and people were satisfied with the TAVI procedure. Patients with severe aortic valve stenosis at low surgical risk and their caregivers perceived that TAVI minimized pain and recovery time. Most patients who had TAVI returned to their usual activities more quickly than they would have if they had had SAVR. Our direct patient and caregiver consultations indicated a preference for TAVI over SAVR.

CONCLUSIONS

Both TAVI (transfemoral route) and SAVR resulted in improved patient symptoms and quality of life during the 1 year of follow-up. The TAVI procedure is less invasive and resulted in greater symptom improvement and quality of life than SAVR 30 days after surgery. The TAVI procedure also resulted in a small improvement in mortality and disabling stroke at 30 days. At 1 year, TAVI and SAVR were similar with regard to mortality, although TAVI may result in a slightly lower risk of disabling stroke. According to the study authors, longer follow-up is needed to better understand how long TAVI valves last and to draw definitive conclusions on the long-term outcomes of TAVI compared with SAVR beyond 1 year.The TAVI procedure might be cost-effective for patients at low surgical risk; however, there is some uncertainty in this result. We estimated that the additional cost to provide public funding for TAVI in people with severe aortic valve stenosis at low surgical risk would range from about $5 million to $8 million over the next 5 years.Among a mixed or generally high-risk population, people typically preferred the less invasive nature and the faster recovery time of TAVI compared with SAVR.

Minithoracotomy versus full sternotomy for isolated aortic valve replacement: Propensity matched data from two centers

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive approaches to isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR) continue to gain popularity. This study compares outcomes of AVR through right anterolateral thoracotomy (RALT) to those of AVR through full median sternotomy (MS).

METHODS

Outcomes of two propensity-matched groups of 85 each, out of 250 patients that underwent isolated AVR through RALT or MS at our two institutions, were compared in a retrospective study.

RESULTS

Propensity score matching resulted in 85 matched pairs with balanced preoperative characteristics. Procedure times were significantly shorter in the RALT group (median difference: 13 min [-25 to -0.5]; p = .039), cardiopulmonary bypass times were longer (median difference: 17 min [10-23.5]; p = < .001) and ventilation times shorter (median difference: 259 min [-390 to -122.5]; p = < .001). There was no significant difference in aortic cross-clamp times (median difference: 1.5 min [-3.5 to 6.5]; p = .573). The RALT group had lower rates of perioperative platelet transfusions (odds ratio [OR] = 0.00 [0.00-0.59]; p = .0078) and postoperative pneumonia (OR = 0.10 [0.00-0.70]; p = .012), as well as shorter hospitalization times (median difference: 2.5 days [-4.5 to -1]; p = .005). There were no significant differences regarding paravalvular leakage (p = .25), postoperative stroke (p = 1), postoperative atrial fibrillation (p = .12) or 1-year-mortality (p = 1).

CONCLUSIONS

This study found RALT to be an equally safe approach to surgical AVR as MS. Furthermore, RALT showed advantages regarding important aspects of postoperative recovery, especially concerning pulmonary function.

Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement with sutureless and rapid deployment valves: a report from an international registry (Sutureless and Rapid Deployment International Registry)†

OBJECTIVES

The impact of sutureless and rapid deployment (SURD) valves on the clinical outcomes of patients undergoing minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MI-AVR) has still to be defined. The aim of this study was to assess clinical characteristics and in-hospital results of patients receiving SURD-AVR through less invasive approaches in the large population of the Sutureless and Rapid Deployment International Registry (SURD-IR).

METHODS

Of the 1935 patients who received primary isolated SURD-AVR between 2009 and 2018, a total of 1418 (73.3%) underwent MI interventions and were included in this analysis. SURD-AVR was performed using upper ministernotomy in 56.4% (n = 800) of cases and anterior right thoracotomy in 43.6% (n = 618). Perceval S was implanted in 1011 (71.3%) patients and Edwards Intuity or Intuity Elite in 407 (28.7%) patients.

RESULTS

Overall in-hospital mortality and stroke rates were 1.7% and 2%, respectively. A definitive pacemaker implantation was reported in 9% of cases and significantly decreased over the observational period, from 20.6% to 5.6% (P = 0.002). The Perceval valve was associated with shorter operative times and was more frequently implanted in patients receiving anterior right thoracotomy incision. The Intuity valve was preferred in younger patients and revealed superior postoperative haemodynamic results.

CONCLUSIONS

SURD-AVR was largely performed through less invasive approaches and can be considered as a primary indication in MI surgery. In the SURD-IR cohort, MI SURD-AVR using both Perceval and Intuity valves appeared a safe and reproducible procedure associated with promising early results.

Psychological Effects of Skin Incision Size in Minimally Invasive Valve Surgery Patients

Objective

Clinical benefits of minimally invasive cardiac valve surgery (MIVS) have been reported. Improved postoperative mental status was never analyzed with dedicated psychological tests. In the present study we intend to investigate potential benefits of MIVS for patient psychological well-being, with special attention to the relevance of the patient perception of the chest surgical scar, of the self body image and cosmetic aspects.

Methods

Between 2016 and 2017, 87 eligible patients, age 66.5 ± 14.5 years, operated on for heart valve surgery, underwent either conventional full sternotomy (CS; n = 48) or MIVS by V-shape hemi-sternotomy approach ( n = 39). Before selection of the surgical approach, patients had undergone preoperative evaluation of their psychological status using Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II), State-Trait Anxiety Inventory Form Y (STAI-Y), and EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) psychological tests. Six months postoperatively, patients filled in dedicated questionnaires to assess their psychological status, quality of life, and subjective perception, thus repeating the above-mentioned tests and adding the Body Image Questionnaire (BIQ) and Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) v2.0 tests for scar-healing process evaluation.

Results

No patient died during the study.The 4 post-test scales of psychological well-being (BDI-II P = 0.04, STAI-Y P = 0.04, 2 indices of EQ-5D P = 0.03, P = 0.01) showed significant differences between the MIVS group and CS group, with MIVS-small incision patients having lower level of depression and anxiety symptoms and better quality of life. Mean score differences of scar perception (BIQ and POSAS v2.0) were significant, with MIVS patients having evaluated the scar quality significantly better than CS patients.

Conclusions

MIVS appears associated with significant esthetical and related psychological benefits, as documented by technical tests. These findings should be considered when selecting the most appropriate technique for heart valve surgery.

Outcomes in minimally invasive double valve surgery

OBJECTIVE

To review current literature evidence on outcomes of minimally invasive double valve surgeries (MIS).

METHODS

A comprehensive electronic literature search was done from inception to 20th June 2020 identifying articles that discussed outcomes of minimally invasive approach in double valve surgeries either as a solo cohort or as comparative to conventional sternotomies. No limit was placed on time and place of publication and the evidence has been summarized in narrative manner within the manuscript.

RESULTS

Majority of current literature reported similar perioperative and clinical outcomes between MIS and conventional median sternotomy; except that MIS has better cosmetic effects and pain control. Nevertheless, minimal invasive techniques are associated with longer cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic cross-clamp times which may have impact on the reported outcomes and overall morbidity and mortality rates.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive double valve surgery continues to develop, but scarcity in the literature suggests uptake is slow, possibly due to the learning curve associated with MIS. Many outcomes appear to be comparable to conventional sternotomy. There is need for larger, multi-center, and randomized trial to fully evaluate and establish the early, mid- and long-term morbidity and mortality rates associated with both techniques.

Aortic valve replacement using stented or sutureless/rapid deployment prosthesis via either full-sternotomy or a minimally invasive approach: a network meta-analysis

Background

New technologies such as sutureless or rapid deployment prosthetic valves and access via minimally invasive incisions offer alternatives to traditional full-sternotomy aortic valve replacement (SAVR). However, a comprehensive comparison of these surgical techniques along with alternative valve prosthesis has not been completed.

Methods

Electronic databases were searched for studies comparing outcomes for SAVR, minimally invasive AVR (MiAVR), sutureless/rapid-deployment AVR (SuAVR) via full-sternotomy, or minimally invasive SuAVR (MiSuAVR) from their inception until September 2018. Early postoperative outcomes and follow-up data were included in a Bayesian network meta-analysis.

Results

Twenty-three studies with 8,718 patients were identified. Compared with standard SAVR, SuAVR had significantly lower incidence of postoperative AF [odds ratio (OR) 0.33, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.14-0.79, P=0.013] and MiSuAVR greater requirement for postoperative permanent pacemaker (OR 2.27, 95% CI: 1.25-4.14, P=0.008). All sutureless/rapid-deployment procedures had reduced cardiopulmonary bypass and cross-clamp times, by a mean of 25.9 and 25.0 min, respectively. Hospital length of stay (LOS), but not intensive care LOS, was reduced for all groups (MiAVR -1.53 days, MiSuAVR -2.79 days, and SuAVR 3.37 days). A signal towards reduced early mortality, wound infections, and acute kidney injury was noted in both sutureless/rapid-deployment and minimally invasive techniques but did not achieve significance. Sutureless/rapid-deployment procedures had favourable survival and freedom from valve related reoperation, however follow-up times were short and demonstrated significant heterogeneity between intervention groups.

Conclusions

Minimally invasive and sutureless techniques demonstrate equivalent early postoperative outcomes to SAVR and may reduce ventilation time, hospital LOS and postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) burden.

Is it safe to move away from a full sternotomy for aortic valve replacement?

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgical approaches have gained popularity among patients and surgeons. The aim of this project was to assess the safety of initiating aortic valve replacement via an anterior right thoracotomy program.

METHODS

Between May 2015 and May 2019, data of all isolated primary aortic valve replacements were extracted retrospectively from our prospectively collected database and categorized into conventional median sternotomy, hemisternotomy, and anterior right thoracotomy cases. In total, 661 patients underwent isolated primary aortic valve replacement, of whom 429 (65%) had a median sternotomy, 126 (19%) had a hemisternotomy, and 106 (16%) had an anterior right thoracotomy. Preoperative characteristics were similar in each of the three groups. Statistical testing of the surgical groups was undertaken using the chi-square test for categorical variables and one-way analysis of variance with Tukey post-hoc pairwise tests (where appropriate) for continuous variables, to identify differences between pairs of data.

RESULTS

Cardiopulmonary bypass and crossclamp times were significantly longer in the anterior right thoracotomy group compared to the hemisternotomy and median sternotomy groups (p < 0.001). Blood loss was significantly less and hospital stay significantly shorter in the hemisternotomy group compared to median sternotomy group but not the anterior right thoracotomy group. Mortality, stroke, renal, gastrointestinal and respiratory complications showed no statistical differences.

CONCLUSION

Surgical aortic valve replacement had a very low mortality and morbidity in our experience, and it is safe to start a minimal access program for aortic valve replacement.

Analysis of the logistical, economic and minimally invasive cardiac surgical training difficulties in India

Significant advances have been made in minimally invasive cardiac surgery (MICS) over the past 3 decades. However, the acceptance and practice of MICS continue to remain low in the developing world owing to several challenges. This study aimed to analyse the logistical, economic and training difficulties in MICS with a special focus on the Indian scenario. A systematic review of the current literature on MICS with an emphasis on these challenges was performed. MICS has been shown to have clear cost-benefit advantage that stems from shorter ICU and hospital stay, lesser transfusion requirements and avoidance of sternal wound complications. However, only limited reports are currently available detailing the economic and training challenges for the application of MICS in the developing world, particularly India. Though several challenges exist in widening MICS practice in India, these can be overcome through a target-oriented approach.

Hybrid intervention approach to coronary artery and valvular heart disease

Coronary angiography is used to assess the burden of coronary artery disease prior to surgical valve repair/replacement and often leads to concomitant bypass and valve surgery. We sought to evaluate outcomes of an alternative, hybrid approach involving percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and valve surgery, assessing the rate of stent thrombosis as a primary outcome. We reviewed charts of consecutive patients who underwent planned PCI prior to surgical valve repair/replacement by a single surgeon from January 2008 to December 2016. We calculated rates of surgical complication, duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) prior to surgery, and rates of stent thrombosis and in-stent restenosis. Twenty-four patients were included in this study. Surgery was performed a median of 52.5 days following PCI. DAPT was withheld an average of 8 days before and resumed an average of 4 days after surgery. Ninety-two percent of surgeries were minimally invasive. There were no bleeding complications, stent thromboses, or restenosis events. All patients survived the 1-year follow-up. For patients with mixed coronary and valvular heart disease, a heart team approach involving preoperative PCI followed by staged minimally invasive valvular surgery appears to be safe and warrants further exploration.

The sutureless and rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement international registry: lessons learned from more than 4,500 patients

The treatment options for patients with aortic valve disease have considerably expanded over the last decade. The remarkable advances in catheter-based technology, the popularizing of minimally invasive (MI) surgery, and the introduction of new valve technologies, such as sutureless and rapid-deployment (SURD) valves have led to a paradigm shift in the management of aortic valve pathologies. Yet, given their recent introduction, the current evidence on sutureless and rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement (SURD-AVR) has been limited thus far. The Sutureless and Rapid-Deployment Aortic Valve Replacement International Registry (SURD-IR) was established in 2015 by a consortium of 18 research centers to assess safety, efficacy, short- and long-term outcomes of SURD-AVR interventions. The present keynote lecture aims to assess and comment on the real-world evidence for SURD-AVR surgery generated from the SURD-IR.

Full sternotomy and minimal access approaches for surgical aortic valve replacement: a multicentre propensity-matched study

OBJECTIVES

Surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) can be performed via a full sternotomy or a minimal access approach (mini-AVR). Despite long-term experience with the procedure, mini-AVR is not routinely adopted. Our goal was to compare contemporary outcomes of mini-AVR and conventional AVR in a large multi-institutional national cohort.

METHODS

A total of 5801 patients from 10 different centres who had a mini-AVR (2851) or AVR (2950) from 2011 to 2017 were evaluated retrospectively. Standard aortic prostheses were used in all cases. The use of the minimally invasive approach has increased over the years. The primary outcome is the incidence of 30-day deaths following mini-AVR and AVR. Secondary outcomes are the occurrence of major complications following both procedures. Propensity-matched comparisons were performed based on the multivariable logistic regression model.

RESULTS

In the overall population patients who had AVR had an increased surgical risk based on the EuroSCORE, and the 30-day mortality rate was higher (1.5% and 2.3% in mini-AVR and AVR, respectively; P = 0.048). Propensity scores identified 2257 patients per group with similar baseline profiles. In the matched groups, patients who had mini-AVR, despite longer cardiopulmonary bypass (81 ± 32 vs 76 ± 28 min; P = 0.004) and cross-clamp (64 ± 24 vs 59 ± 21 min; P ≤ 0.001) times, had lower 30-day mortality rates (1.2% vs 2.0%; P = 0.036), reduced low cardiac output (0.8% vs 1.4%; P = 0.046) and reduced postoperative length of stay (9 ± 8 vs 10 ± 7 days; P = 0.004). Blood transfusions (36.4% vs 30.8%; P ≤ 0.001) and atrial fibrillation (26.0% vs 21.5%, P ≤ 0.001) were higher in patients who had the mini-AVR.

CONCLUSIONS

In a large multi-institutional recent cohort, minimal access approach aortic valve replacement is associated with reduced 30-day mortality rates and shorter postoperative lengths of stay compared to standard sternotomy. A prospective randomized trial is needed to overcome the possible biases of a retrospective study.

Cost of Thoracotomy Approach: An Analysis of the LATERAL Trial

BACKGROUND

Less invasive techniques for left ventricular assist device implantation have been increasingly prevalent over past years and have been associated with improved clinical outcomes. The procedural economic impact of these techniques remains unknown. We sought to study and report economic outcomes associated with the thoracotomy implantation approach.

METHODS

The LATERAL clinical trial evaluated the safety and efficacy of the thoracotomy approach for implantation of the HeartWare centrifugal-flow ventricular assist device system (HVAD). We collected UB-04 forms in parallel to the trial, allowing analysis of index hospitalization costs. All charges were converted to costs using hospital-specific cost-to-charge ratios and were subsequently compared with Medicare cost data for the same period (2015-2016). Because thoracotomy implants were off-label for all left ventricular assist devices during that period, the Medicare cohort was assumed to consist predominately of traditional sternotomy patients.

RESULTS

Thoracotomy patients demonstrated decreased costs compared with sternotomy patients during the index hospitalization. Mean total index hospitalization costs for thoracotomy were $204,107 per patient, corresponding to 21.6% reduction (P < .001) and $56,385 savings per procedure compared with sternotomy. Across almost all cost categories, thoracotomy implants were less costly.

CONCLUSIONS

In LATERAL, a clinical trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of the thoracotomy approach for HVAD, costs were lower than those reported in Medicare patient claims occurring over the same period. Because Medicare data can be presumed to consist of predominately sternotomy procedures, thoracotomy appears less expensive than traditional sternotomy.

Improved operative and recovery times with mini-thoracotomy aortic valve replacement

Background

The small incisions of minimally invasive surgery have the proposed benefit of less surgical trauma, less pain, and faster recovery. This study was done to compare minimally invasive techniques for aortic valve replacement, including right anterior mini-thoracotomy and mini-sternotomy, to conventional sternotomy.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed 503 patients who underwent isolated aortic valve replacement at our institution from 2012 to 2015 using one of three techniques: 1) Mini-thoracotomy, 2) Mini-sternotomy, 3) Conventional sternotomy. Demographics, operative morbidity, mortality, and postoperative complications were compared.

Results

Of the 503 cases, 267 (53.1%) were mini-thoracotomy, 120 (23.8%) were mini-sternotomy, and 116 (23.1%) were conventional sternotomy. Mini-thoracotomy patients, compared to mini-sternotomy and conventional sternotomy, had significantly shorter bypass times [82 (IQ 67–113) minutes; vs. 117 (93.5–139.5); vs. 102.5 (85.5–132.5), respectively (p < 0.0001)], a lower incidence of prolonged ventilator support [3.75% vs. 9.17 and 12.9%, respectively (p = 0.0034)], and required significantly shorter ICU and postoperative stays, resulting in an overall shorter hospitalization [6 (IQ 5–9) days; vs. 7 (5–14.5); vs 9 (6–15.5), respectively (p < 0.05)]. Incidence of other postoperative complications were lower in the mini-thoracotomy group compared to mini-sternotomy and conventional sternotomy, without significance. Minimally invasive techniques trended towards better survival [mini-thoracotomy 1.5%, mini-sternotomy 1.67%, and conventional sternotomy 5.17% (p = 0.13)].

Conclusions

Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement approaches are safe, effective alternatives to conventional sternotomy. The mini-thoracotomy approach showed decreased operative times, decreased lengths of stay, decreased incidence of prolonged ventilator time, and a trend towards lower mortality when compared to mini-sternotomy and conventional sternotomy.

The Opportunities and Limitations of Minimally Invasive Cardiac Surgery

BACKGROUND

Over the past two decades, minimally invasive techniques for classic heart valve surgery and isolated bypass surgery have been developed that enable access to the heart via partial sternotomy for most aortic valve procedures and via sternotomy-free mini-thoracotomy for other procedures.

METHODS

We review the current evidence on minimally invasive cardiac surgery on the basis of pertinent randomized studies and database studies retrieved by a selective search in the MEDLINE and PubMed Central databases, as well as by the Google Scholar search engine.

RESULTS

A PubMed search employing the search term "minimally invasive cardiac surgery" yielded nearly 10 000 hits, among which there were 7 prospective, randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) on aortic valve replacement, with a total of 477 patients, and 3 RCTs on mitral valve surgery, with a total of 340 patients. Only limited reports of specified centers are currently available for multiple valvular procedures and multiple coronary artery bypass procedures. The RCTs reveal that the minimally invasive techniques are associated with fewer wound infections and faster mobilization, without any difference in survival. Minimally invasive procedures are technically demanding and have certain anatomical prerequisites, such as appropriate coronary morphology for multiple bypass operations and the position of the aorta in the chest for sternotomy-free aortic valve procedures. The articles reviewed here were presumably affected by selection bias, in that patients in the published studies were preselected, and there may have been negative studies that were not published at all.

CONCLUSION

Specialized surgeons and centers can now carry out many cardiac valvular and bypass operations via minithoracotomy rather than sternotomy. According to current evidence, these minimally invasive techniques yield results that are at least as good as classic open-heart surgery.

Sutureless aortic valve replacement in high risk patients neutralizes expected worse hospital outcome: A clinical and economic analysis

BACKGROUND

Aortic valve replacement (AVR) by sutureless prostheses is changing surgeon options, although which patients benefit most, as well as their possible economic impact is still to be defined.

METHODS

Perceval-S prosthesis (LivaNova) is reserved, at the documented Institution, for patients at perceived high surgical risk. This retrospective analysis of outcome and resource consumption compared Perceval with other tissue valves. To clarify the comparison, only patients respecting 'instructions-for- use' of Perceval were reviewed.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

> 65 years, +/- coronary artery bypass grafting, patent foramen ovale closure or myectomy.

EXCLUSION CRITERIA

bicuspid, combined valve or aortic sur- gery. Costs were calculated per patient on a daily basis including preoperative tests, operating costs (hourly basis), disposables, drugs, blood components and personnel.

RESULTS

The sutureless group (SU-AVR) had a higher risk profile than the sutured group (ST-AVR). Cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and cross-clamp times were significantly shorter in SU-AVR (isolated AVR: cross-clamp 52.9 ± 12.6 vs. 69 ± 15.3 min, p < 0.001; CPB 79.4 ± 20.3 vs. 92.7 ± 18.2 min, p < 0.001). Hospital mortality was 0.9% in SU-AVR and nil in ST-AVR, p = 0.489; intubation 7 (IQR 5-10.7) and 7 h (IQR 5-9), p = 0.785; intensive care unit 1 (IQR 1-1) and 1 day (IQR 1-1), p = 0.258; ward stay 5.5 (IQR 4-7) and 5 days (IQR 4-6), p = 0.002; pacemaker 5.7% (6/106) and 0.9% (1/109), p = 0.063, respectively. Hospital costs (excluding the prosthesis) were $12,825 (IQR 11,733-15,334) for SU-AVR and $12,386 (IQR 11,217-14,230) in ST-AVR, p = 0.055.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite higher operative risks in SU-AVR, hospital mortality, morbidity and resource consumption did not differ. Operative times were shorter with the sutureless device and this improve- ment, along with more frequent ministernotomy, may have improved many postoperative aims.

Ultra fast track surgery: a rapid deployment aortic valve replacement through a J-ministernotomy

Aortic valve surgery has been undergone continuous development over the last years, involving less invasive techniques and the use of new technologies to reduce the traumatic impact of the intervention and extend the operability toward increasingly high-risk patients. Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (AVR) has gradually been recognized as a less traumatic technique compared to median sternotomy, becoming first choice approach in numerous experienced centers. Herein we present our multidisciplinary minimally invasive approach for AVR, involving: (I) reduced chest incision; (II) rapid deployment AVR; (III) minimally invasive extracorporeal circulation system; and (IV) ultra fast track (UFT) anaesthetic management.