Minimal invasive aortic valve replacement surgery is associated with improved survival: a propensity-matched comparison

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.

Surgical and transcatheter aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis in low-risk elective patients: Analysis of the Aortic Valve Replacement in Elective Patients From the Aortic Valve Multicenter Registry

OBJECTIVES

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) remains the preferred strategy for high-risk or elderly individuals with aortic valve (AV) stenosis who are not considered to be optimal surgical candidates. Recent evidence suggests that low-risk patients may benefit from TAVI as well. The current study evaluates midterm survival in low-risk patients undergoing elective surgical AV replacement (SAVR) versus TAVI.

METHODS

The Aortic Valve Replacement in Elective Patients From the Aortic Valve Multicenter Registry (AVALON) compared isolated elective transfemoral TAVI or SAVR with sternotomy or minimally invasive approach in low-risk individuals performed between 2015 and 2019. Propensity score matching was conducted to determine SAVR controls for TAVI group in a 1-to-3 ratio with 0.2 caliper.

RESULTS

A total of 2393 patients undergoing elective surgery (1765 SAVR and 629 TAVI) with median European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II (EuroSCORE II) score 1.81 (interquartile range [IQR], 1.36 to 2.53]) were initially included. Median follow-up was 2.72 years (IQR, 1.32-4.08; max 6.0). Propensity score matching returned 329 TAVI cases and 593 SAVR controls. Thirty-day mortality was 11 out of 329 (3.32%) in TAVI and 18 out of 593 (3.03%) in SAVR (risk ratio, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.52-2.37; P = .801) groups, respectively. At 2 years, survival curves began to diverge in favor of SAVR, which was associated with 30% lower mortality (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.496-0.997; P = .048).

CONCLUSIONS

Our data did not demonstrate a survival difference between TAVI and SAVR during the first 2 postprocedure years. After that time, SAVR is associated with improved survival. Extended observations from randomized trials in low-risk patients undergoing elective surgery are warranted to confirm these findings and draw definitive conclusions.

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.

Comparative effects of minimally invasive approaches vs. conventional for obese patients undergoing aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive approaches like mini-thoracotomy and mini-sternotomy for Aortic Valve Replacement (AVR) showed impressive outcomes. However, their advantages for obese patients are questionable. We aimed in this network meta-analysis to compare three surgical approaches: Full sternotomy (FS), Mini-sternotomy (MS), and Mini-thoracotomy (MT) for obese patients undergoing AVR.

METHODS

We followed the PRISMA extension for this network meta-analysis. PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane searched through March 2023 for relevant articles. The analysis was performed using R version 4.2.3.

RESULTS

Out of 344, 8 articles met the criteria with 1392 patients. The main outcomes assessed were perioperative mortality, re-exploration, atrial fibrillation, renal failure, ICU stay, hospital stay, cross-clamp time, and bypass time. In favor of MS, the length of ICU stay and hospital stay was significantly lower than for FS [MD -0.84, 95%CI (-1.26; -0.43)], and [MD -2.56, 95%CI (-3.90; -1.22)], respectively. Regarding peri-operative mortality, FS showed a significantly higher risk compared to MS [RR 2.28, 95%CI (1.01;5.16)]. Also, patients who underwent minimally invasive approaches; MT and MS, required less need of re-exploration compared to FS [RR 0.10, 95%CI (0.02;0.45)], and [RR 0.33, 95%CI (0.14;0.79)], respectively. However, Intraoperative timings; including aortic cross-clamp, and cardiopulmonary bypass time, were significantly lower with FS than for MS [MD -9.16, 95%CI (-1.88; -16.45)], [MD -9.61, 95%CI (-18.64; -0.59)], respectively.

CONCLUSION

Our network meta-analysis shows that minimally invasive approaches offer some advantages for obese patients undergoing AVR over full sternotomy. Suggesting that these approaches might be considered more beneficial alternatives for obese patients undergoing AVR.

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.

Network Meta-Analysis Comparing Transcatheter, Minimally Invasive, and Conventional Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement

The landscape of aortic valve replacement (AVR) has evolved dramatically over the years, but time-varying outcomes have yet to be comprehensively explored. This study aimed to compare the all-cause mortality among 3 AVR techniques: transcatheter (TAVI), minimally invasive (MIAVR), and conventional AVR (CAVR). An electronic literature search was performed for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing TAVI with CAVR and RCTs or propensity score-matched (PSM) studies comparing MIAVR with CAVR or MIAVR to TAVI. Individual patient data for all-cause mortality were derived from graphical reconstruction of Kaplan-Meier curves. Pairwise comparisons and network meta-analysis were conducted. Sensitivity analyses were performed in the TAVI arm for high risk and low/intermediate risk, as well as patients who underwent transfemoral (TF) TAVI. A total of 27 studies with 16,554 patients were included. In the pairwise comparisons, TAVI showed superior mortality to CAVR until 37.5 months, beyond which there was no significant difference. When restricted to TF TAVI versus CAVR, a consistent mortality benefit favoring TF TAVI was seen (shared frailty hazard ratio [HR] = 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.76 to 0.98, p = 0.024). In the network meta-analysis involving majority PSM data, MIAVR demonstrated significantly lower mortality than TAVI (HR = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.59 to 0.82) and CAVR (HR = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.59 to 0.80); this association remained compared with TF TAVI but with a lower extent of benefit (HR = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.65 to 0.99). In conclusion, the initial short- to medium-term mortality benefit for TAVI over CAVR was attenuated over the longer term. In the subset of patients who underwent TF TAVI, a consistent benefit was found. Among majority PSM data, MIAVR showed improved mortality compared with TAVI and CAVR but less than the TF TAVI subset, which requires validation by robust RCTs.

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.

Introduction of the Rapid Deployment Aortic Valve System Use in Elderly Patients With Endocarditis

Introduction

The rapid-deployment valve system (RDVS) was introduced to facility minimally invasive aortic valve replacement. In this study we evaluate the potential benefits of RDVS in elderly high-risk patients with endocarditis of the aortic valve.

Materials and Methods

Since the introduction of RDVS in our institution in December 2017 through October 2021, EDWARDS INTUITY rapid-deployment prosthesis (Model 8300A, Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA) has been implanted in a total of 115 patients for different indications by a single surgeon. Out of one-hundred and fifteen cases of RDVS implantation, seven patients with a median age of 77 yrs. (range 62-84yrs.), suffered from active infective endocarditis of the aortic valve. The median EuroSCORE II of these highly selected patient cohort was 77% (range 19-80%). Patient data were evaluated perioperatively including intra-operative data as well as in-hospital morbidity/mortality and follow-up after discharge from hospital.

Results

Three patients underwent previous cardiac surgery. Concomitant procedures were performed in six patients including, ascending aorta replacement (n = 3), mitral valve repair (n = 1), pulmonary valve replacement (n = 1), bypass surgery (n = 1), left atrial appendix resection (n = 1) and anterior mitral valve repair (n = 1). Median aortic cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass time was 56 min (range 29-122 min) and 81 min (range 45-162 min.), respectively. Post-operative complications in these elderly high-risk patients were atrial fibrillation (n = 3) and re-exploration for pericardial effusion (n = 1). One pacemaker implantation was required on postoperative day 6 due to sick sinus syndrome. There was one in-hospital death (14%) and one during follow-up (14%).

Conclusion

Rapid-deployment aortic valve system seems to be a viable option with acceptable morbidity and mortality in elderly high-risk patients with active infective endocarditis of the aortic valve.

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.

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.

Right anterior mini thoracotomy approach for isolated aortic valve replacement: Early outcomes at a Canadian center

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this manuscript was to report the clinical outcomes of the initial series of 100 consecutive Right Anterior Mini Thoracotomy (RAMT) aortic valve replacement (AVR) implantations at a Canadian Center.

METHODS

This retrospective study reported the clinical outcomes of the first 100 patients who underwent the RAMT approach for isolated surgical AVR in Calgary, Canada, between 2016 and 2020. Primary outcomes were death within 30 days of surgery and disabling stroke. Secondary outcomes included surgical times, the need for permanent pacemaker (PPM), incidence of postoperative blood transfusion in the intensive care unit (ICU), postsurgical atrial fibrillation (AF), length of ICU/hospital stay, postsurgical AF, residual paravalvular leak (PVL), postoperative transvalvular gradient, need for postsurgical intravenous opioids, duration of invasive ventilation in the ICU, and chest tube output in the first 12 h postsurgery.

RESULTS

In this study, 54 patients were male, and the average age of the cohort was 72 years. Mortality within 30 days of surgery was 1% with no disabling postoperative strokes. Mean cardiopulmonary bypass and cross clamp was 84 and 55 min, respectively. PPM rate was 3%, incidence of blood transfusion in the ICU was 4%, and the rate of postoperative AF was 23%. Median length of ICU and hospital stay was 1 and 5 days, respectively. Rate of mild or greater residual PVL was 3%, while the average residual transvalvular mean gradient was 8.5 mmHg.

CONCLUSION

The sternum-sparing RAMT approach can be safely integrated into surgical practice as a minimally invasive alternative for isolated AVR, and can reduce postoperative bleeding and narcotic requirements.

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.

Comparing quality of life and postoperative pain after limited access and conventional aortic valve replacement: Design and rationale of the LImited access aortic valve replacement (LIAR) trial

BACKGROUND

Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) via limited access approaches ('mini-AVR') have proven to be safe alternative for the surgical treatment of aortic valve disease. However, it remains unclear whether these less invasive approaches are associated with improved quality of life and/or reduced postoperative pain when compared to conventional SAVR via full median sternotomy (FMS).

STUDY DESIGN

The LImited access Aortic valve Replacement (LIAR) trial is a single-center, single blind randomized controlled clinical trial comparing 2 arms of 80 patients undergoing limited access SAVR via J-shaped upper hemi-sternotomy (UHS) or conventional SAVR through FMS. In all randomized patients, the diseased native aortic valve is planned to be replaced with a rapid deployment stented bioprosthesis. Patients unwilling or unable to participate in the randomized trial will be treated conventionally via SAVR via FMS and with implantation of a sutured valve prosthesis. These patients will participate in a prospective registry.

STUDY METHODS

Primary outcome is improvement in cardiac-specific quality of life, measured by two domains of the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire up to one year after surgery. Secondary outcomes include, but are not limited to: generic quality of life measured with the Short Form-36, postoperative pain, perioperative (technical success rate, operating time) and postoperative outcomes (30-day and one-year mortality), complication rate and hospital length of stay.

CONCLUSION

The LIAR trial is designed to determine whether a limited access approach for SAVR ('mini-AVR') is associated with improved quality of life and/or reduced postoperative pain compared with conventional SAVR through FMS.The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT04012060.

Minimally Invasive Aortic Valve Surgery in Octogenarians: Reliable Option or Fallback Solution?

OBJECTIVE

Aortic valve disease is more and more common in western countries. While percutaneous approaches should be preferred in older adults, previous reports have shown good outcomes after surgery. Moreover, advantages of minimally invasive approaches may be valuable for octogenarians. We sought to compare outcomes of conventional aortic valve replacement (CAVR) versus minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MIAVR) in octogenarians.

METHODS

We retrospectively collected data of 75 consecutive octogenarians who underwent primary, elective, isolated aortic valve surgery through conventional approach (41 patients, group CAVR) or partial upper sternotomy (34 patients, group MIAVR).

RESULTS

Mean age was 81.9 ± 0.9 and 82.3 ± 1.1 years in CAVR and MIAVR patients, respectively (P = 0.09). MIAVR patients had lower 24-hour chest drain output (353.4 ± 207.1 vs 501.7 ± 229.9 mL, P < 0.01), shorter mechanical ventilation (9.6 ± 2.4 vs 11.3 ± 2.3 hours, P < 0.01), lower need for blood transfusions (35.3% vs 63.4%, P = 0.02), and shorter hospital stay (6.8 ± 1.6 vs 8.3 ± 4.3 days, P < 0.01). Thirty-day mortality was zero in both groups. Survival at 1, 3, and 5 years was 89.9%, 80%, and 47%, respectively, in the CAVR group, and 93.2%, 82.4%, and 61.8% in the MIAVR group, with no statistically significant differences (log-rank test, P = 0.35).

CONCLUSIONS

Aortic valve surgery in older patients provided excellent results, as long as appropriate candidates were selected. MIAVR was associated with shorter mechanical ventilation, reduced blood transfusions, and reduced hospitalization length, without affecting perioperative complications or mid-term survival.

Initial clinical experience with minimally invasive surgical aortic valve replacement

BACKGROUND

The ministernotomy approach is increasingly used in aortic valve surgery. However, the advantages are still a matter of discussion. The aim of this study was to compare the postoperative outcome in patients undergoing elective aortic valve operation, either through mini-sternotomy or conventional sternotomy.

METHODS

We included 317 patients who were treated for their aortic valve, 63 patients underwent a minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (mini-AVR) and 254 patients underwent a full-sternotomy AVR. Patients with endocarditis, those who underwent previous cardiac surgery and those who required a concomitant procedure were excluded from the analysis. The method of matching weights according to propensity score was used to adjust for differences between the two treatment groups, and outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

The mediastinal drainage was significantly lower at 6, 24 hours and total after mini-AVR procedure than after full-sternotomy AVR (median: 373 vs. 499 mL, P<0.001). However, the number of patients receiving packed red blood cells transfusion was similar. Overall, the hospital mortality was lower in the full-sternotomy group, 0% vs. 3.2%, P=0.039. No difference was found in the median hospital length of stay, perioperative myocardial infarction, postoperative incidence of new pacemaker implantation, stroke, prolonged mechanical ventilation and mediastinitis. No patients in the mini-AVR group experienced paravalvular leakage. Midterm survival resulted in no difference between the treatment groups at 4-year (90.5% vs. 95.2%), P=0.75.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the minimally invasive surgery for AVR may increasingly be applied, our initial experience calls for a careful approach of adapting this procedure.

Use of an Aortic Valve Replacement Simulation Model to Understand Hospital Costs and Resource Utilization Associated With Rapid-deployment Valves

PURPOSE

Aortic stenosis (AS) is the most common cause of adult valvular heart disease. In the past decade, minimally invasive surgery (MIS) to treat AS has gained popularity, especially if performed in combination with rapid deployment valves (RDVs), which shorten cross-clamp time (XCT). This study examines specific outcomes and related costs of aortic valve replacement (AVR) before and after the introduction of RDVs.

METHODS

We used the AVR simulator, an economic model developed to correlate cost and resource utilization associated with the adoption of RDVs, to compare 2 scenarios: (1) a current scenario based on standard AVR practices and (2) a proposed scenario based on increasing use of RDVs and an MIS approach. Both scenarios involved 3 subgroups of patients treated with (1) conventional AVR, (2) MIS, and (3) AVR combined with a coronary artery bypass graft. The current scenario (status quo) involved patients treated with traditional biological valves, and the proposed scenario involved patients who underwent implantation with an RDV. The AVR simulator was fed with real-world input data to estimate complication rates and resource consumption in the proposed scenario. Real-world input data for this analysis were obtained from patients diagnosed with a symptomatic heart valve disease between 2015 and 2018, at Clinica-San-Gaudenzio, Novara, Italy. Lastly, the AVR simulator estimated hospital savings by comparing the 2 scenarios.

FINDINGS

A total of 132 patients underwent implantation with a traditional biological valve, and 107 were treated with a commercial valve system. The RDV was associated with an increase of 52% of patients undergoing MIS, which generated a 6.1-h reduction of XCT and a total savings of €6695. RDVs also reduced intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital ward length of stay (LOS), leading to savings of €677 and €595 per patient, respectively. Mortality and blood transfusions also improved. The savings for the hospital (related to shorter XCT, hospital ward LOS, and ICU LOS) amounted to €144.111. Our findings were consistent with data gathered from our real-word setting, and results of a sensitivity analysis indicate that our findings were robust across different possible situations.

IMPLICATIONS

Switching to RDVs and MIS procedures for AVRs was associated with a reduction of costs related to XCT, hospital ward LOS, and ICU LOS. Hospitals can upload literature- and experience-based clinical and cost values to the AVR simulator to estimate a hospital's performance with the introduction of RDVs compared with standard biological valves. This study was not randomized, so more extensive studies could confirm our results in the future.

Extensive repair of acute type A aortic dissection through a partial upper sternotomy and using complete stent-graft replacement of the arch

BACKGROUND

Partial upper sternotomy (mini-ER) can be used in some adult cardiac surgeries but is seldom performed in the treatment of acute type A aortic dissection (AAAD). This study aimed to assess the feasibility and short-term outcomes of complete stent-graft replacement of the arch with triple-branched stent graft for AAAD through a mini-ER.

METHODS

From 2015 to 2018, 254 patients with AAAD underwent complete stent-graft replacement of the arch with a triple-branched stent graft. Replacement was performed with conventional full sternotomy (con-ER) in 142 patients and with mini-ER in the other 112 patients. Using propensity score matching, the clinical data were compared between 100 patients in the mini-ER group and 100 patients in the con-ER group.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching, there were no significant between-group differences in aortic cross-clamp time, cardiopulmonary bypass time, or total operative time. The amount of mediastinal drainage and number of red blood cell units were significantly lower in the mini-ER group compared with the con-ER group (P < .001). The intubation time was significantly shorter in the mini-ER group (P < .001). The treatment costs were also lower in the mini-ER group (P < .001). There were no significant between-group differences in 30-day mortality (9% vs 8%; P > .99) or postoperative complications.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that extensive repair of AAAD through a mini-ER is feasible. It was superior to con-ER in terms of blood loss, postoperative ventilation time, and treatment costs.

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

BACKGROUND

The aim of this multicenter retrospective study was to compare early and midterm clinical and hemodynamic results of aortic valve replacement with rapid-deployment bioprostheses performed through conventional full-sternotomy vs mini-sternotomy.

METHODS

Data from the Italian multicenter registry of aortic valve replacement with rapid-deployment bioprostheses (INTU-ITA registry) were analyzed. Patients were divided into 2 groups: full sternotomy (FS) and ministernotomy (MS). Primary endpoint was the comparison of early and midterm mortality. Secondary endpoints were: comparison of intraoperative variables, complications, and hemodynamic performance. A propensity score weighting approach was used for data analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 1057 patients were analyzed: 435 (41.2%) and 622 (58.8%) in group FS and MS, respectively. Thirty-day mortality was 1.6% and 0.6% in FS and MS groups, respectively (P = .074). cardiopulmonary bypass time was 78.5 minutes and 83 minutes in FS and MS groups, respectively (P = .414). In the overall cohort, the incidence of intraoperative complications and of device success was 3.8% (40 patients) and 95.9% (1014 patients), respectively, with no significant differences between groups. Survival at 1, 3, and 5 years was 94.1%, 98.1%, 88.5% and 91.8%, 85.2%, and 84.8% in FS and MS groups, respectively (P = .412). The 2 groups showed similar postoperative gradients (median mean gradient, FS: 10.0 mm Hg, MS: 11.0 mm Hg; P = .170) and also similar incidence of patient-prosthesis mismatch (FS: 7%, MS: 6.4%, P = .647).

CONCLUSIONS

According to our data, rapid-deployment bioprostheses allow the performance of minimally invasive aortic valve replacement with similar surgical times and similar clinical and hemodynamic outcomes to conventional surgery and should be considered the first choice in these procedures.

Partial upper sternotomy for concomitant left atrial ablation and aortic valve replacement

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive access via partial sternotomy has been established for aortic valve surgery in the past years. But concomitant procedures like atrial ablation and aortic valve replacement via partial upper sternotomy have not been investigated so far. We therefore present our operative technique and results in terms of safety and efficacy, including follow-up and quality of life.

METHODS

Between February 2007 and March 2014 a total of 67 patients undergoing isolated minimally invasive aortic valve replacement received concomitant left atrial ablation at our centre. Operative technique and short- and midterm results are described, including quality of life assessment using the SF-36 questionnaire.

RESULTS

Operative techniqual success rate was 98.5%. We observed only one (1.5%) ablation-related conversion to full sternotomy. Operative times, reexploration and stroke rates as well as 30-day mortality are comparable to open procedures. Efficacy: The proportions of patients in sinus rhythm at discharge was 54.5% for paroxysmal AF patients and 27.7% overall. After a mean follow-up time of 38.0±22.6 months the cardiac related mortality rate was 4.5%, the rate of sinus rhythm was 72.7% for paroxysmal AF patients and 36.8% overall. Of survivors, overall mean quality of life was 7.3±2.1 as measured by SF-36.

CONCLUSIONS

Concomitant left atrial ablation and aortic valve replacement can safely be performed via partial sternotomy and results are non-inferior to open surgery.

Benefits of rapid deployment aortic valve replacement with a mini upper sternotomy

BACKGROUND

Surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) is currently deemed the gold standard of care for patients with severe aortic stenosis. Currently, most AVRs are safely performed through a full median sternotomy approach. With an increasingly elderly and high-risk patient population, major advances in valve technology and surgical technique have been introduced to reduce perioperative risk and post-operative complications associated with the full sternotomy approach, in order to ensure surgical AVR remains the gold standard. For example, minimally invasive approaches (most commonly via mini sternotomy) have been developed to improve patient outcomes. The advent of rapid deployment valve technology has also been shown to improve morbidity and mortality by reducing cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic cross-clamp times, as well as facilitating the use of minimal access approaches. Rapid deployment valves were introduced into our department at the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh in 2014. The aim of this study is to investigate if utilising the combination of rapid deployment valves and a mini sternotomy minimally invasive approach resulted in improved outcomes in various patient subgroups.

METHODS

Over a 3-year period, we identified 714 patients who underwent isolated AVR in our centre. They were divided into two groups: 61 patients (8.5%) were identified who received rapid deployment AVR via J-shaped mini upper sternotomy (MIRDAVR group), whilst 653 patients (91.5%) were identified who received either a full sternotomy (using a conventional prosthesis or rapid deployment valve) or minimally invasive approach using a conventional valve (CONVAVR group). We retrospectively analysed data from our cardiac surgery database, including pre-operative demographics, intraoperative times and postoperative outcomes. Outcomes were also compared in two different subgroups: octogenarians and high-risk patients.

RESULTS

Pre-operative demographics showed that there were significantly more female and elderly patients in the MIRDAVR group. The MIRDAVR group had significantly reduced cardiopulmonary bypass (63.7 min vs. 104 min, p = 0.0001) and aortic cross-clamp times (47.3 min vs. 80.1 min, p = 0.0001) compared to the CONVAVR group. These results were particularly significant in the octogenarian population, who also had a reduced length of ICU stay (30.9 h vs. 65.6 h, p = 0.049). In high-risk patients (i.e. logistic EuroSCORE I > 10%), minimally invasive-rapid deployment aortic valve replacement is still beneficial and is also characterized by significantly shorter cardiopulmonary bypass time (69.1 min vs. 96.1 min, p = 0.03). However, post-operative correlations, such as length of ICU stay, become no more significant, likely due to serious co-morbidities in this patient group.

CONCLUSION

We have demonstrated that minimally invasive rapid deployment aortic valve replacement is associated with significantly reduced cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic cross-clamp times. This correlation is much stronger in the octogenarian population, who were also found to have significantly reduced length of ICU stay. Our study raises the suggestion that this approach should be utilised more frequently in clinical practice, particularly in octogenarian patients.

Quality of Life After Ministernotomy Versus Full Sternotomy Aortic Valve Replacement

Quality of life and patient satisfaction after ministernotomy have never been compared to conventional full sternotomy in randomized trials. The QUALITY-AVR trial is a single-blind, single-center, independent, randomized clinical trial comparing ministernotomy to full sternotomy in patients with isolated severe aortic stenosis scheduled for elective aortic valve replacement. One hundred patients were randomized in a 1:1 computational fashion. The primary endpoint was a difference between intervention groups of ≥0.10 points in change from baseline quality of life Questionnaire EuroQOL-index, measured at 1, 6, or 12 months. Secondary endpoints were differences in change from other baseline EuroQOL-index utilities, cardiac surgery-specific satisfaction questionnaire (SATISCORE), a combined safety endpoint of 4 major adverse complications at 1 month (all-cause mortality, acute myocardial infarction, neurologic events, and acute renal failure), bleeding through drains within the first 24 hours, intubation time, and other minor endpoints. Clinical follow-up was scheduled at baseline, 1, 6, and 12 months after randomization. Change from baseline mean difference EQ-5D-index was +0.20 points (95% confidence interval 0.10-0.30, P < 0.001) and median difference +0.14 (95% confidence interval 0.06-0.22, P < 0.001), favoring the ministernotomy group at 1 month. Patient satisfaction was also better at 1 month (Satiscore 83 ± 9 vs 77 ± 13 points; P = 0.010). The ministernotomy group had significantly less bleeding in the first 24 hours (299 ± 140 vs 509 ± 251 mL, P = 0.001). Ministernotomy provides a faster recovery with improved quality of life and satisfaction at 1 month compared to full sternotomy.

[Aortic valve replacement via J-shaped partial upper sternotomy: randomized trial, mid-term results]

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of aortic valve replacement through upper partial J-shaped sternotomy compared to conventional sternotomy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

There were 240 procedures of isolated aortic valve replacement for the period 2012-2017. According to inclusion criteria, 112 patients were randomized into 2 groups: group I - median sternotomy, group II - upper partial J-shaped sternotomy. Mean age of patients was 56.1±14.3 and 53.1±14.9 years, respectively (p=0.284). Females prevailed in both groups (55.4% vs. 57.1%, p=0.848). Peak pressure gradient on the aortic valve was 106.2±23.9 and 102.8±25.3 mm Hg, respectively (p=0.484).

RESULTS

In-hospital mortality was 1.8% (n=1) in group I (p=0.315). Incidence of postoperative complications (complete atrioventricular blockade, ventricular septal defect) was similar (p=1.0). Mean time cross clamping in I and II groups was 65.5±12.5 and 64.7±13.1 min (p=0.729). Mean follow-up period was 31.6 and 33.5 months, respectively. Kaplan-Meier survival rate was 92.6 and 93.0%, respectively (log-rank test=0,767). Freedom from thromboembolic events was 91.7 and 90% (log-rank test=0.213).

CONCLUSION. U

Pper partial J-shaped sternotomy is safe and effective for aortic valve surgery and characterized by similar outcomes compared to conventional sternotomy.

Right anterior mini-thoracotomy and sutureless valves: the perfect marriage

Background

A minimally invasive approach (MIA) reduces mortality and morbidity in patients referred for aortic valve replacement (AVR). Sutureless technology facilitates a MIA. We describe our experience with the sutureless Perceval (LivaNova, Italy) aortic bioprosthesis through a right anterior mini-thoracotomy (RAMT) approach.

Methods

Between March 2011 and October 2019, 1,049 patients underwent AVR with Perceval bioprosthesis. Five hundred and three patients (48%) were operated through a RAMT approach in the second intercostal space. Considering only isolated AVR (881), 98% of patients were operated with MIA, and Perceval in RAMT approach was performed in 57% of these patients. Eight patients (1.6%) had previously undergone cardiac surgery. The prosthesis sizes implanted were: S (n=91), M (n=154), L (n=218) and XL (n=40). Concomitant procedures were mitral valve surgery (n=6), tricuspid valve repair (n=1), mitral valve repair and tricuspid valve repair (n=1) and miectomy (n=2). Mean age was 78±4 years (range, 65-89 years), 317 patients were female (63%) and EuroSCORE II was 5.9%±8.4%.

Results

The 30-day mortality was 0.8% (4/503). Cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and aortic cross-clamp times were 81.6±30.8 and 50.3±24.5 minutes respectively for stand-alone procedures. In two patients, early moderate paravalvular leakage appeared as a result of incomplete expansion of the sutureless valve due to oversizing of the bioprosthesis, requiring reoperations at two and nine postoperative days with sutured aortic bioprosthesis implantation. Permanent pacemaker implantation within the first thirty days was necessary in 26 (5.2%) patients. At the mean follow-up of 4.6 years (range, 1 month to 8.6 years), survival was 96%, freedom from reoperation was 99.2%, and mean transvalvular pressure gradient was 11.9±4.3 mmHg.

Conclusions

AVR with the Perceval bioprosthesis in a RAMT approach is a safe and feasible procedure associated with low mortality and excellent hemodynamic performance. Sutureless technology facilitates a RAMT approach.

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.

Perioperative Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Aortic Arch Reconstruction with Branched Grafts Through a Partial Upper Sternotomy

BACKGROUND

Ministernotomy has been advocated over recent years as an alternative technique for different cardiovascular surgical procedures to reduce the surgical trauma associated with conventional full sternotomy. In recent years, several reports have addressed minimally invasive approaches to the proximal aorta and aortic arch through a partial upper sternotomy (PUS). We reviewed our experience of minimally invasive open aortic arch reconstruction with a branched graft through a PUS.

METHODS

Between February 2016 and December 2018, 22 patients underwent open arch repair through a PUS. Moderate hypothermic circulatory arrest and antegrade selective cerebral perfusion were used for organ protection. The median patient age was 76 years (range, 65-86). Renal insufficiency was observed in 14 patients (64%) and chronic lung disease, in 11 (50%). Total arch replacement was performed in 20 patients (91%), while the remaining 2 (9%) received partial arch replacement with reconstruction of two supraaortic vessels. Aortic valve replacement with a tissue valve or aortic valve repair was each performed concomitantly in one patient (5%) as a concomitant procedure. The median durations of cardiopulmonary bypass, aortic cross-clamping, and circulatory arrest were 214, 109, and 50 min, respectively.

RESULTS

No early deaths, permanent neurological deficits, or spinal cord injuries occurred. One patient (5%) required intraoperative conversion to full sternotomy because of bleeding caused by a venting cannula injury. Three patients (14%) required re-exploration because of bleeding. Prolonged ventilation occurred in 2 patients (9%) with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive aortic arch reconstruction with branched grafts through a PUS can be safely performed with satisfactory perioperative outcomes.

Minimal invasive aortic valve replacement: associations of radiological assessments with procedure complexity

Objectives

Limited aortic annulus exposure during minimal invasive aortic valve replacement (mini-AVR) proves to be challenging and contributes to procedure complexity, resulting in longer procedure times. New innovations like sutureless valves have been introduced to reduce procedure complexity. Additionally, preoperative imaging could also contribute to reducing procedure times. Therefore, we hypothesize that Computed Tomography (CT)-image based measurements are associated with mini-AVR complexity.

Methods

One hundred patients who underwent a mini-sternotomy and had a preoperative CT scan were included. With a CT-based mini-AVR planning tool, we measured access distance, access angle, annulus dimensions, and calcium volume. The associations of these measurements with cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time and aortic cross-clamp (AoX) time were assessed using univariable and multivariable regression models. In the multivariable models, these measurements were adjusted for age and suture technique.

Results

In the univariable regression models, calcium volume and annulus dimensions were associated with longer CPB and AoX time. After adjusting for age and suture technique, increasing calcium volume was still associated with longer CPB (adjusted β-coefficient 0.002, 95%-CI (0.005, 0.019), p-value = 0.002) and AoX time (adjusted β-coefficient 0.010, 95%-CI (0.004, 0.016), p-value = 0.002). However, after adjusting for these confounders, the association between annulus dimensions and procedure times lost statistical significance.

Conclusion

Increase in calcium volume are associated with longer CPB and AoX times, with age and sutureless valve implantation as independent confounders. In contrast to previous studies, access angle was not associated with procedure complexity.

Minimally invasive Ozaki technique

Implantation of a mechanical or biological graft remains the gold standard in treatment of patients with aortic valve pathology. However, the necessity of taking anticoagulants, the problem of graft durability, the risk for thromboembolic and haemorrhagic complications, prosthetic infective endocarditis impel surgeons to search for and develop new technologies. One of such new techniques is prosthetic repair of the aortic valve using autologous pericardium according to the S. Ozaki operation. This procedure makes it possible to form an aortic valve with excellent haemodynamic characteristics and low frequency of re-do operations in both the early and remote periods. Current trends are towards exponential growth of minimally invasive cardiosurgical interventions. Upper partial sternotomy is one of the most commonly used techniques in surgery of the aortic valve. The results of previous studies demonstrated that a minimally invasive approach apart from a good cosmetic effect has a series of advantages over full sternotomy by the in-hospital and remote outcomes. On the other hand, a minimally invasive access is associated with limited surgical exposure and tight operative field and is therefore technically more complicated than the operation via full sternotomy. In our retrospective study we compared the clinical outcomes of the minimally invasive Ozaki technique (Ozaki Mini Group, n=30) and full sternotomy (Ozaki Full Group, n=112). Because of differences between the groups by the clinical and demographic parameters in order to ensure maximum comparability we conducted computer-assisted propensity score matching, resulting in formation of 2 groups consisting of 30 patients each. The primary outcome measures of the study were 30-day all-cause mortality and postoperative major adverse cardiac events (myocardial infarction, stroke). As additional categorical outcomes we examined new-onset atrial fibrillation and renal failure, resternotomy, prolonged (>24 h) assisted artificial pulmonary ventilation, mediastinitis/sternal instability. Secondary outcome measures were as follows: the duration of the operation, duration of myocardial ischaemia and artificial circulation, blood loss, requirement for transfusion of donor blood components.

Improved Patient Recovery With Minimally Invasive Aortic Valve Surgery: A Propensity-Matched Study

Objective

Despite conflicting evidence available, minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MIAVR) is increasingly used as an alternative to full sternotomy. We sought to compare early outcomes of aortic valve replacement through a full sternotomy (conventional aortic valve replacement [CAVR]) and upper ministernotomy (MIAVR).

Methods

We analyzed 297 patients having undergone primary, elective, isolated MIAVR or CAVR between January 2014 and June 2018. Following propensity score matching, 120 patients remained in each group.

Results

MIAVR required longer bypass (93 ± 26 vs 81 ± 24 minutes, P < 0.01) and operative times (214 ± 39 vs 182 ± 37 minutes, P < 0.01). However, aortic cross-clamp times were comparable (57 ± 17 vs 54 ± 14 minutes for MIAVR and CAVR, respectively, P = 0.14). MIAVR had less 24-hour blood loss (253 ± 204 vs 323 ± 296 mL, P = 0.03), less red blood cells transfusions [1.4 packs (1.1 o 1.9) vs 2.1 packs (1.8 to 2.7), P = 0.01], and shorter assisted ventilation time (7.1 ± 3.3 vs 9.7 ± 3.8 hours, P < 0.01) when compared to CAVR. These results led to significantly shorter intensive care unit and hospital stays for MIAVR patients (2.5 ± 1.3 vs 3.4 ± 1.1 days, P < 0.01 and 6.9 ± 4.1 vs 8.2 ± 4.8 days, P = 0.03, respectively). Thirty-day mortality and clinical outcomes did not differ significantly among groups.

Conclusions

MIAVR through upper ministernotomy was shown to be as safe and reliable as CAVR. Patient recovery time was improved by shortening mechanical ventilation and reducing blood loss and transfusions. These results may be significant for high-risk patients undergoing aortic valve surgery.

Mini-extracorporeal circulation technology, conventional bypass and prime displacement in isolated coronary and aortic valve surgery: a propensity-matched in-hospital and survival analysis

OBJECTIVES

Conventional cardiopulmonary bypass is the most commonly used means of artificial circulation in cardiac surgery. However, it suffers from the effects of haemodilution and activation of inflammatory/coagulation cascades. Prime displacement (PD) can offset haemodilution and mini-extracorporeal technology (MIECT) can offset both. So far, no study has compared all of these modalities together; hence, we compared the outcomes of these 3 modalities at our institution.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of our cardiac surgical database. A total of 9626 patients underwent conventional bypass (CB), 3125 patients underwent a modification of CB, called PD, and 904 underwent MIECT. A 1:1 propensity-matching algorithm was employed using IBM SPSS 24 to match (i) 813 MIECT patients with 813 CB patients and (ii) 717 MIECT patients with 717 PD patients. The patients included coronary artery bypass grafting and valve surgery.

RESULTS

MIECT had significantly (P < 0.05) longer bypass and cross-clamp times compared to CB and PD. MIECT had significantly higher rates of postoperative atrial fibrillation associated with it compared to CB. The mean red cell blood transfusion was significantly lower in the MIECT group compared to the CB group as was the mean platelet transfusion and fresh frozen plasma transfusion. The overall 5-year survival was higher in the MIECT group compared to the CB group (log-rank, P = 0.018). Between the MIECT and the PD groups, we found the incidence of renal failure and gastrointestinal complications to be significantly higher in the PD group compared to the MIECT group.

CONCLUSIONS

MIECT has short-term advantages over CB and PD. However, due to the retrospective limitations of the study, including calendar time bias, a multicentre randomized controlled trial comparing all 3 modalities will be beneficial for the larger cardiac community.

Cardiac surgery 2018 reviewed

For the year 2018, more than 22,000 published references can be found in PubMed when entering the search term "cardiac surgery". As in the last 4 years, this review focusses on conventional cardiac surgery publications which provide important and interesting information especially relevant for non-surgical colleagues. Interventional techniques have been considered if they were published in the context of classic surgical techniques. We have again reviewed the fields of coronary revascularization and valve surgery and briefly touched on aortic surgery and surgery for terminal heart failure. For revascularization of complex coronary artery disease, bypass grafting was reconfirmed as gold standard and computer-tomographic angiography established equipoise for decision-making with classic angiography. For aortic valve treatment, some new longer-term outcomes from TAVI vs. SAVR trials confirmed equipoise of both treatments for high and medium risk. New information was provided for INR-management of mechanical aortic valves as well as long-term experiences for alternatives to mechanical valves (i.e., Ross and the relatively new Ozaki procedure). In the mitral and tricuspid field, prevalence data illustrate a significant amount of under-treatment for mitral and tricuspid valve regurgitation and evidence for life prolonging-effects of surgery. Finally, elongation of the ascending aorta was identified as new risk factor for aortic dissection and 2 years outcome of the newest generation of left ventricular assist devices demonstrate impressive improvements in outcome. While this article attempts to summarize the most pertinent publications, it does not expect to be complete and cannot be free of individual interpretation. As in recent years, it provides a condensed summary that is intended to give the reader "solid ground" for up-to-date decision-making in cardiac surgery and a stimulus for in-depth reading.

Minimally invasive surgical aortic valve replacement

Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MIAVR) is defined as a surgical aortic valve replacement which involves smaller chest incisions as opposed to full sternotomy. It is performed using cardiopulmonary bypass with cardiac arrest. It benefits from potential advantages of a less invasive procedure. To date, over 14 000 MIAVR have been reported in the literature. Due to heterogeneity of the studies, different surgical techniques and mainly the non-randomised nature of these studies comparing MIAVR with conventional aortic valve replacement, it is difficult to draw definitive conclusions. The two main techniques of MIAVR are mini-sternotomy and right anterior mini-thoracotomy. Both techniques with other less common forms of MIAVR will be discussed in this review. The advantages, disadvantages and surgical pitfalls will be discussed. Some of the advantages include shorter intensive care and hospital stay, reduced perioperative blood loss, less pain, improved respiratory function and cosmesis. The possible disadvantage of longer bypass and cross-clamp times may be counter balanced by the recent sutureless and rapid deployment valves. Despite some of the benefits, MIAVR has not been adopted by a significant proportion of the surgeons possibly related to the learning curve and requirements for re-training. As MIAVR becomes more common, randomised trials comparing this technique with transcatheter aortic valve implantation is warranted. In addition, assessing quality of life including return to work and functional capacity is needed.

Outcomes of minimally invasive aortic valve replacement surgery

Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement has been used for more than 20 years, but its uptake has been limited. The volumes have increased steadily over the last 10 years, but it is still not regarded as a mainstream procedure. The issue, to some extent, is due to the lack of perceived evidence that minimal access incisions confer any benefit other than cosmetic appearance. In this article, the current literature on minimally invasive aortic valve replacement is reviewed, and it is concluded that benefits are demonstrable, particularly in higher risk, comorbid settings.

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.

Minimally Invasive Access Aortic Arch Surgery

OBJECTIVE

Median sternotomy is still the standard approach for aortic arch surgery. Minimally invasive techniques promise faster recovery with shorter hospital stay due to thoracic stability, reduced pain, and superior cosmetic results. However, safety is a concern in complex aortic surgery. The aim of our study was to demonstrate that aortic arch surgery via partial upper sternotomy is viable, safe, and equivalent to standard procedure both in terms of its safety and the risk of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events.

METHODS

We interrogated our prospectively collected database and identified a total of 21 nonemergent patients operated on at our center between October 2008 and February 2015. Indication for operation was aneurysmatic disease in 18 and aortic dissection in 3 patients. Data were analyzed for in-hospital mortality, stroke, bleeding complications, and acute kidney injury.

RESULTS

Mean ± standard deviation age of patients was 69.3 ± 14.4 years, 57.1% were female, and mean ± standard deviation logistic EuroSCORE was 17.0 ± 7.2%. Surgery on the aortic arch comprised proximal arch in 9, hemiarch in 9, and total arch replacement plus frozen elephant trunk in 3 patients. Concomitant procedures included aortic root repair in 10, aortic root replacement in 2, and aortic valve replacement in 3 patients. We lost one patient because of septic shock, no stroke occurred, but a transient neurologic deficit in three and a postoperative delirium in four patients. Re-exploration for bleeding was necessary in two patients, and one patient had acute kidney injury.

CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive aortic arch surgery via partial upper sternotomy does not increase the risk of morbidity or mortality. Thus, in experienced hands, it is viable, safe, and therefore favorable and as a result should be offered to more patients.

Outcomes of a Rapid Deployment Aortic Valve versus its Conventional Counterpart

Objective

The aim of this study was to compare outcomes after rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement (RDAVR) and conventional aortic valve replacement (AVR) from two studies.

Methods

Patients who underwent RDAVR (INTUITY valve) in the prospective, 5-year, single-arm multicenter TRITON study, or conventional AVR (Perimount Magna Ease valve) in the prospective Perimount Magna Ease postmarket study, were propensity score matched and compared for procedural, hemodynamic, safety, and clinical outcomes.

Results

Matched RDAVR (n = 106) and conventional AVR (n = 106) patients had similar baseline characteristics (mean ± SD age, 72.8 ± 7.6 vs 72.5 ± 7.4 years; male 59.4% vs 61.3%) and procedures (concomitant procedures: 41.5% vs 50.9%). Mean ± SD aortic cross-clamp time was significantly shorter in RDAVR than AVR patients (51.8 ± 20.9 vs 73.9 ± 33.2 minutes; P < 0.001), as was mean cardiopulmonary bypass time (82.8 ± 34.2 vs 102.4 ± 41.7 minutes; P < 0.001). At 1 year, RDAVR patients showed significantly lower mean ± SD and peak aortic valve gradients (9.0 ± 3.4 and 17.0 ± 6.2 mm Hg, respectively) than conventional AVR patients (13.4 ± 5.5 and 24.2 ± 10.8 mm Hg, respectively; all P < 0.001). Patient-prosthesis mismatch was significantly less common with RDAVR than with AVR [overall: 16/66 (24.2%) vs 46/76 (60.5%); P = 0.007; severe: 2/66 (3.0%) vs 13/76 (17.1%)]. There were no significant differences between the RDAVR and AVR groups regarding 30-day safety endpoints. Survival rates in the RDAVR and conventional AVR groups were, respectively, 99.1% and 100.0% at 30 days, 97.1% and 95.1% at 1 year, and 93.3% and 94.1% at 3 years ( P = nonsignificant).

Conclusions

In this retrospective study with matched populations, the RDAVR with the INTUITY valve system provided superior procedural and hemodynamic outcomes than a standard bioprosthesis without compromising safety.

Efficacy of Aortic Valve Replacement through Full Sternotomy and Minimal Invasion (Ministernotomy)

Background: new minimally invasive sternotomy (mini-sternotomy) procedures have improved the treatment outcome and reduced the incidence of perioperative complications leading to improved patient satisfaction and a reduced cost of aortic valve replacement in comparison to the conventional median sternotomy (full sternotomy). The aim of this study is to compare and gain new insights into operative and early postoperative outcomes, long-term postoperative results, and 5-year survival rates after aortic valve replacement through a ministernotomy and full sternotomy. Methods: This is a retrospective study of patients who underwent an isolated replacement of the aortic valve via a full sternotomy or ministernotomy from 2011 to 2016. From 2011 to 2016, 426 cardiac interventions were performed, 70 of which (16.4%) were of the ministernotomy and 356 (83.6%) of the full sternotomy. Through propensity score matching, 70 patients who underwent the ministernotomy (ministernotomy group) were compared with 70 patients who underwent the full sternotomy (control group). Results: in the propensity matching cohort, no statistical difference in operative time was noted (p = 0.856). The ministernotomy had longer cross clamp (88.7 ± 20.7 vs. 80.3 ± 24.6 min, p = 0.007) and bypass (144.0 ± 29.9 vs. 132.9 ± 44.9 min, p = 0.049) times, less ventilation time (9.7 ± 1.7 vs. 11.7 ± 1.4 h, p < 0.001), shorter hospital stay (18.3 ± 1.9 vs. 21.9 ± 1.9 days, p = 0.012), less 24-h chest tube drainage (256.2 ± 28.6 vs. 407.3 ± 40.37 mL, p < 0.001), fewer corrections of coagulopathy (p < 0.001), fewer patients receiving catecholamine (5.71 vs. 30.0%, p < 0.001) and better cosmetic results (p < 0.001). Moreover, the number of patients without complaints at 1 year after the operation was significantly greater in the ministernotomy group (p = 0.002), and no significant differences in the 5-year survival between the groups were observed. In the overall cohort, the ministernotomy had longer cross clamp times (88.7 ± 20.7 vs. 79.9 ± 24.8 min, p < 0.001), longer operative times (263.5 ± 62.0 vs. 246.7 ± 74.2 min, p = 0.037) and bypass times (144.0 ± 29.9 vs. 132.7 ± 44.5 min, p = 0.026), lower incidence of 30-day mortality (1(1.4) vs. 13(3.7), p = 0.022), shorter hospital stays post-surgery p = 0.025, less 24-h chest tube drainage, p < 0.001, and fewer corrections of coagulopathy (p < 0.001). Conclusions: the ministernotomy has a number of advantages compared with the full sternotomy and thus could be a better approach for aortic valve replacement.