Outcomes of minimally invasive aortic valve replacement surgery

Tailored surgical strategies for mini-access open total arch repair

Objective

Open arch repair is perceived as a challenging, high-risk procedure, with a barrier against the use of a minimally invasive approach. We aimed to present a mini-access total arch replacement performed by stratified approaches and to evaluate perioperative outcomes to contribute to the body of evidence.

Methods

We evaluated 40 consecutive patients (aged 69.5 years; interquartile range, 65.6-76.3 years) undergoing elective total arch replacement using 5- to 8-cm upper mini-sternotomy between 2018 and 2022. Surgical strategies, including arterial inflow site and methods of branching vessel reconstruction, were systematically selected at the individual level. To evaluate comparative outcomes, contemporary cases undergoing total arch replacement via sternotomy with similar eligibility criteria served as a control group, and the inverse-treatment-weighting method was used to adjust for baseline characteristics.

Results

Arch-first anastomosis using trifurcate graft, distal-first anastomosis using 4-branch graft, and island anastomosis were used in 18 (45%), 12 (30.0%), and 10 (25%) patients, respectively. Lower body and cardiac ischemic times were 23.4 minutes (interquartile range, 18.0-29.0 minutes) and 66.7 minutes (interquartile range, 50.1-78.2 minutes). There was no early (30-day or in-hospital) mortality, and 2 patients experienced disabling stroke (5.0%). The contemporary control group comprised 55 patients. After an adjustment, a mini-access group showed lower risks of stroke (odds ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.78-1.00; P = .049) and a composite of major complications (odds ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.68-0.92; P = .003), compared with a sternotomy approach.

Conclusions

Based on present results, mini-access total arch replacement may be performed with reasonable safety and efficiency.

Anaesthesia for Minimally Invasive Cardiac Surgery

Minimally invasive cardiac surgery (MICS) has been used since the 1990s and encompasses a wide range of techniques that lack full sternotomy, including valve and coronary artery graft surgery as well as transcatheter procedures. Due to the potential benefits offered to patients by MICS, these procedures are becoming more common. Unique anaesthetic knowledge and skills are required to overcome the specific challenges presented by MICS, including mastery of transoesophageal echocardiography (TOE) and the provision of thoracic regional analgesia. This review evaluates the relevance of MICS to the anaesthetist and discusses pre-operative assessment, the relevant adjustments to intra-operative conduct that are necessary for these techniques, as well as post-operative care and what is known about outcomes.

Propensity matched analysis of minimally invasive versus conventional isolated aortic valve replacement

OBJECTIVE

To analyse the early and mid-term outcome of patients undergoing conventional aortic valve replacement (AVR) versus minimally invasive via hemi-sternotomy aortic valve replacement (MIAVR).

METHODS

A single centre retrospective study involving 653 patients who underwent isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR) either via conventional AVR (n = 516) or MIAVR (n = 137) between August 2015 and March 2020. Using pre-operative characteristics, patients were propensity matched (PM) to produce 114 matched pairs. Assessment of peri-operative outcomes, early and mid-term survival and echocardiographic parameters was performed.

RESULTS

The mean age of the PM conventional AVR group was 71.5 (±8.9) years and the number of male (n = 57) and female (n = 57) patients were equal. PM MIAVR group mean age was 71.1 (±9.5) years, and 47% of patients were female (n = 54) and 53% male (n = 60). Median follow-up for PM conventional AVR and MIAVR patients was 3.4 years (minimum 0, maximum 4.8 years) and 3.4 years (minimum 0, maximum 4.8 years), respectively. Larger sized aortic valve prostheses were inserted in the MIAVR group (median 23, IQR = 4) versus conventional AVR group (median 21, IQR = 2; p = 0.02, SMD = 0.34). Cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time was longer with MIAVR (94.4 ± 19.5 minutes) compared to conventional AVR (83.1 ± 33.3; p = 0.0001, SMD = 0.41). Aortic cross-clamp (AoX) time was also longer in MIAVR (71.6 ± 16.5 minutes) compared to conventional AVR (65.0 ± 52.8; p = 0.0001, SMD = 0.17). There were no differences in the early post-operative complications and mortality between the two groups. Follow-up echocardiographic data showed significant difference in mean aortic valve gradients between conventional AVR and MIAVR groups (17.3 ± 8.2 mmHg vs 13.0 ± 5.1 mmHg, respectively; p = 0.01, SMD = -0.65). There was no significant difference between conventional AVR and MIAVR in mid-term survival at 3 years (88.6% vs 92.1%; log-rank test p = 0.31).

CONCLUSION

Despite the longer CPB and AoX times in the MIAVR group, there was no significant difference in early complications, mortality and mid-term survival between MIAVR and conventional AVR.

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.

A survey of minimally invasive cardiac surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

Lack of scientific data on the feasibility and safety of minimally invasive cardiac surgery (MICS) during the COVID-19 pandemic has made clinical decision making challenging. This survey aimed to appraise MICS activity in UK cardiac units and establish a consensus amongst front-line MICS surgeons regarding standard best MICS practise during the pandemic.

METHODS

An online questionnaire was designed through the 'googleforms' platform. Responses were received from 24 out of 28 surgeons approached (85.7%), across 17 cardiac units.

RESULTS

There was a strong consensus against a higher risk of conversion from minimally invasive to full sternotomy (92%; n = 22) nor there is increased infection (79%; n = 19) or bleeding (96%; n = 23) with MICS compared to full sternotomy during the pandemic. The majority of respondents (67%; n = 16) felt that it was safe to perform MICS during COVID-19, and that it should not be halted (71%; n = 17). London cardiac units experienced a decrease in MICS (60%; n = 6), whereas non-London units saw no reduction. All London MICS surgeons wore an FP3 mask compared to 62% (n = 8) of non-London MICS surgeons, 23% (n = 3) of which only wore a surgical mask. London MICS surgeons felt that routine double gloving should be done (60%; n = 6) whereas non-London MICS surgeons held a strong consensus that it should not (92%; n = 12).

CONCLUSION

Whilst more robust evidence on the effect of COVID-19 on MICS is awaited, this survey provides interesting insights for clinical decision-making regarding MICS and aids to facilitate the development of standardised MICS guidelines for an effective response during future pandemics.

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.

Clinical study of minimally invasive aortic valve replacement through a right parasternal second intercostal transverse incision: The first Chinese experience

BACKGROUND

There is an increasing demand for minimally invasive aortic valve replacement. This study aimed to investigate the safety and feasibility of minimally invasive aortic valve replacement through a right parasternal second intercostal transverse incision.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study, and we collected information from 111 patients who underwent isolated aortic valve replacement surgery performed by the same surgeon from January 2018 to December 2019. According to the operative approach, the patients were divided into a sternotomy aortic valve replacement (SAVR) group (n = 62) and a minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (Mini-AVR) group (n = 49). We compared the intraoperative and postoperative data between the two groups.

RESULT

There was no difference in preoperative data between the Mini-AVR and SAVR. The postoperative ventilator-assisted time, CSICU time and postoperative hospital stay of the Mini-AVR were shorter than those of the SAVR [(15.45 ± 5.75) VS (18.51 ± 6.71) h; (1.77 ± 0.31) VS (2.04 ± 0.63) d; (8.69 ± 2.75) VS (10.77 ± 2.94) d], and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). Mini-AVR had lower postoperative drainage and blood transfusion rates in the first 24 h than SAVR [(109.86 ± 125.98) VS (508.84 ± 311.70) ml; 22.4% VS 46.8%], and the differences were statistically significant (P < 0.05). The incidence of postoperative AF in the Mini-AVR group was also lower than that in the SAVR group (10.2% VS 30.6%), and the differences were statistically significant (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Mini-AVR has the advantages of less ventilator time, a reduced need for blood transfusion, less AF and a faster recovery. Mini-AVR is a safe and feasible surgical technique that is worthy of clinical application.

The benefit of fibrosa layer stripping technique during minimally invasive aortic valve replacement for calcified aortic valve stenosis-A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Fibrosa layer stripping (FLS) technique is a new approach to remove the calcified aortic valve. In this study, we aimed to assess the effectiveness of the FLS technique by comparing it with the conventional technique in minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MIAVR).

METHODS

A prospective, single-center, randomized controlled trial was conducted at Beijing Anzhen Hospital. Seventy patients diagnosed with severe calcific aortic stenosis were randomly assigned to undergo FLS (n = 35) or conventional (n = 35) technique to debride calcified aortic valve. Preoperative profile, procedural parameters, and postoperative outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

No significant difference was observed in the preoperative profile between the two groups. Compared with the conventional technique, the FLS technique had a significantly higher indexed effective orifice area and lower mean gradient. Moreover, the FLS technique was associated with significantly reduced aortic cross-clamp time (41 [38-44] vs. 56 [51-60] min, p < .001), cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time (63 [56-69] vs. 81 [75-84] min, p < .001), and operative time (148 [141-156] vs. 173 [169-180] min, p < .001). Lastly, the length of intensive care unit stay (1.2 ± 0.4 vs. 1.5 ± 0.8 days, p = .041) and hospital stay (5.3 ± 0.6 vs. 6.0 ± 1.4 days, p = .020) was significantly reduced in the FLS group compared with those in the conventional group.

CONCLUSIONS

FLS technique is effective in removing calcified tissue during MIAVR and is associated with shorter cross-clamp time and CPB time, and better hemodynamic performance than the conventional technique.

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.

[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.

Comparison of outcomes between minimally invasive and median sternotomy for double and triple valve surgery: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Limited data exists demonstrating the efficacy of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) compared to median sternotomy (MS) for multiple valvular disease (MVD). This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to compare operative and peri-operative outcomes of MIS vs MS in MVD.

METHODS

PubMed, Ovid, and Embase were searched from inception until August 2019 for randomized and observational studies comparing MIS and MS in patients with MVD. Clinical outcomes of intra- and postoperative times, reoperation for bleeding and surgical site infection were evaluated.

RESULTS

Five observational studies comparing 340 MIS vs 414 MS patients were eligible for qualitative and quantitative review. The quality of evidence assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale was good for all included studies. Meta-analysis demonstrated increased cardiopulmonary bypass time for MIS patients (weighted mean difference [WMD], 0.487; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.365-0.608; P < .0001). Similarly, aortic cross-clamp time was longer in patients undergoing MIS (WMD, 0.632; 95% CI, 0.509-0.755; P < .0001). No differences were found in operative mortality, reoperation for bleeding, surgical site infection, or hospital stay.

CONCLUSIONS

MIS for MVD have similar short-term outcomes compared to MS. This adds value to the use of minimally invasive methods for multivalvular surgery, despite conferring longer operative times. However, the paucity in literature and learning curve associated with MIS warrants further evidence, ideally randomized control trials, to support these findings.

What is the safety and efficacy of the use of automated fastener in heart valve surgery?

INTRODUCTION

Cor-Knot automated fastener has been used as an adjunct in heart valve surgery to eliminate the need for manual tying during valve implantation. Although reduced operative time and facilitation for minimally invasive surgery are clear benefits, whether their use translates to improved patient outcome remains debatable. This study aims to review the safety and efficacy of automated fasteners in heart valve surgeries.

METHOD

Specific searches were conducted via online medical databases (Pubmed, Embase, Ovid) between 1950 and June 2019. Longitudinal studies were included that provided operative parameters.

RESULTS

The initial literature search identified 3773 articles, but only eight met the inclusion criteria and were used for analysis: four studies related to aortic valve replacement (AVR), four related to mitral valve (MV) intervention (total n = 810). The meta-analysis revealed the significantly shorter aortic cross-clamp time in the Cor-knot group compared to manual tying, both in AVR and MV surgeries (P < .05). Cardiopulmonary bypass time was significantly shorter in the Cor-knot group when analyzing studies in MV surgery (weighted mean difference [WMD]: 110.0; 95% confidence interval: 12.3-207.7; P = .027) The use of Cor-Knot did not increase the risk of permanent pacemaker implantation, paravalvular leak, and 30-day mortality. The majority of studies reported no change in the length of intensive unit care and total hospital stay.

CONCLUSION

We confirmed that the majority of existing literatures indicated the safety and intraoperative efficacy with automated fastener application. Nevertheless, there is currently no evidence to support automated fastened sutures can translate its intraoperative advantages to improved patient outcome.

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.

Stonehenge technique is associated with faster aortic clamp time in group of minimally invasive aortic valve replacement via right infra-axillary thoracotomy

BACKGROUND

Trans-right axillary aortic valve replacement (TAX-AVR) remains uncommon. We developed a special method to pull the heart closer to the right chest wall to make the surgery as easy and safe as aortic valve replacement via median sternotomy. Because the retraction sutures lifting the ascending aorta and aortic root are arranged circularly around the wound, we named this technique "Stonehenge technique".

METHODS

We examined 47 patients who underwent aortic valve replacement through a small right infra-axillary thoracotomy as the initial surgical therapy. These patients were divided into two groups: the conventional TAX-AVR group that underwent AVR via the conventional small right axillary incision approach (n = 20) and the TAX-AVR with SH group that underwent AVR with the Stonehenge technique (n = 27).

RESULTS

The aortic cross-clamp and the extracorporeal circulation time were significantly shorter in the TAX-AVR with SH group than in the conventional TAX-AVR group (conventional TAX-AVR group: 125.5 ± 47.9; TAX-AVR with SH group: 96.0 ± 14.0, p = 0.004, and conventional TAX-AVR group: 163.8 ± 55.9; TAX-AVR with SH group: 140.0 ± 16.8, p = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

The outcomes of this technique depend on the site of the retraction sutures in the opened pericardium, direction of pull, amount of force applied, and precautions taken. If performed correctly, the ascending aorta and the root can be pulled from the wound to within the surgeon's fingers' reach, thereby reducing aortic cross-clamp and extracorporeal circulation times in group of minimally invasive aortic valve replacement via right infra-axillary thoracotomy.