Non-sutureless minimally invasive aortic valve replacement: mini-sternotomy versus mini-thoracotomy: a series of 1130 patients

Long-term outcomes of mini-sternotomy versus conventional sternotomy for aortic valve replacement: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

Aortic valve replacement (AVR) for severe symptomatic aortic stenosis is one of the most common cardiac surgical procedures with excellent long-term outcomes. Multiple previous studies have compared short-term outcomes of AVR with mini-sternotomy versus AVR with conventional sternotomy. We have previously reported the results of the randomized MAVRIC trial, which aimed to evaluate early postoperative morbidity among patients undergoing mini-sternotomy and conventional sternotomy AVR. We now report the long-term all-cause mortality, reoperation, MACE outcomes and echocardiographic data from this trial.

METHODS

The prospective, randomized, single-centre, single-blind MAVRIC (manubrium-limited mini-sternotomy versus conventional sternotomy for aortic valve replacement) trial compared manubrium-limited mini-sternotomy and conventional median sternotomy for the treatment of patients with severe aortic stenosis. The previously reported primary outcome was the proportion of patients receiving red cell transfusion postoperatively and within 7 days of the index procedure. Currently reported exploratory analyses of a combined long-term all-cause mortality and reoperation were compared between groups via the log-rank test. Sensitivity analyses reviewed individual components of the combined end point. The primary analysis and long-term exploratory analyses were based on an intention-to-treat principle.

RESULTS

Between March 2014 and June 2016, 270 patients were enrolled and randomized in a 1:1 fashion to undergo mini-sternotomy AVR (n = 135) or conventional median sternotomy AVR (n = 135). At the median follow-up of 6.1 years, the composite outcome of all-cause mortality and reoperation occurred in 18.5% (25/135) of patients in the conventional sternotomy group and in 17% (23/135) of patients in the mini-sternotomy group. The incidence of chronic kidney disease, cerebrovascular accident and myocardial infarction was not significantly different between 2 groups. Follow-up echocardiographic data suggested no difference in peak and mean gradients or incidence of aortic regurgitation between 2 approaches.

CONCLUSIONS

This exploratory long-term analysis demonstrated that, in patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing isolated AVR, there was no significant difference between manubrium-limited mini-sternotomy and conventional sternotomy with respect to all-cause mortality, rate of reoperation, MACE events and echocardiographic data at the median of 6.1-year follow-up.

Sex-specific differences and postoperative outcomes of minimally invasive and sternotomy valve surgery

OBJECTIVES

Female sex is an established risk factor for postoperative complications after heart surgery, but the influence of sex on outcomes after minimally invasive cardiac surgery (MICS) for valvular replacement/repair remains controversial. We examined whether the role of sex as a risk factor varies by surgical approach [MICS vs conventional sternotomy (ST)] and further assessed outcomes among female patients including in-hospital mortality and postoperative complications by surgical approach.

METHODS

We analysed data from a multicentre registry for patients who underwent isolated aortic valve and mitral surgery with MICS or ST. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Propensity score matching was used to minimize between-group differences.

RESULTS

Among the 15 155 patients included in the study, 7674 underwent MICS (50.6%). Female sex was equally distributed in the MICS and ST groups (47.3% vs 47.6%, respectively). Risk for surgery was higher in the ST group than in the MICS group {EuroSCORE II: 4.0 [standard deviation (SD): 6.8] vs 3.7 [SD: 6.4]; P = 0.005}, including among female patients only [ST vs MICS 4.6 (SD: 6.9) vs 4.2 (SD: 6.3); P = 0.04]. Mortality did not significantly vary by procedure among women [MICS vs ST, 2.4% vs 2.8%; hazard ratio 1.09, 95% confidence interval 0.71-1.73; P (surgical approach × sex) = 0.51]. The results also did not vary after adjusting for confounders.

CONCLUSIONS

Female sex was associated with higher mortality in patients undergoing valve surgery, regardless of surgical approach. In female patients, MICS did not provide any benefits over ST in terms of in-hospital deaths or postoperative complications.

SUBJECT COLLECTION

117, 125.

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.

Minimally invasive aortic valve surgery

Since their introduction, it has been demonstrated that minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MIAVR) approaches are safe and effective for the treatment of aortic valve diseases. To date, the main advantage of these approaches is represented by the reduced surgical trauma, with a subsequent reduced complication rate and faster recovery. This makes such approaches an appealing choice also for frail patients [obese, aged, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)]. The standardization of the minimally invasive techniques, together with the implementation of preoperative workup and anesthesiological intra- and post-operative care, led to an amelioration of surgical results and reduction of surgical times. Moreover, the improvement of surgical technology and the introduction of new devices such as sutureless and rapid deployment (SURD) valves, has helped the achievement of comparable results to traditional surgery. However, transcatheter technologies are nowadays more and more important in the treatment of aortic valve disease, also in low risk patients. For this reason surgeons should put new efforts for further reducing the surgical trauma in the future, even taking inspiration from other disciplines. In this review, we aim to present a review of literature evidences regarding minimally invasive treatment of aortic diseases, also reflecting our personal experience with MIAVR techniques. This review could represent a tool for a well-structured patient assessment and preoperative planning, in order to safely carrying out an MIAVR procedure with satisfactory outcomes.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Minimally invasive surgical aortic valve replacement: The RALT approach

Less-invasive techniques for cardiothoracic surgical procedures are designed to limit surgical trauma, but the technical requirements and preoperative planning are more demanding than those for conventional sternotomy. Patient selection, interdisciplinary collaboration, and surgical skills are key factors for procedural success. Aortic valve replacement is frequently performed through an upper hemisternotomy, but the right anterior minithoracotomy represents an even less traumatic, technical advancement. Preoperative assessment of the ascending aorta in relation to the sternum is mandatory to select patients and the intercostal access site. This description of the surgical technique focuses on the specific procedural details including the obligatory planning with computed tomography and our cannulation strategy. We also sought to define the anatomical ascending aorta-sternal relationship, as it is of utmost importance in preoperative computed tomographic planning.

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

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

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

Early- and Long-term Outcomes of Cardiovascular Surgery via Minimal Right Vertical Infra-axillary Thoracotomy: A 15-year Study of 1,126 Patients

This study reviews our results and experience with cardiothoracic surgery via RVIAT over the past 15 years. This retrospective overview summarises our results, describing the early and late clinical outcomes of 1,126 patients, including 370 ASD closures, 488 VSD closures and 268 valve surgeries, at a single center between October 2001 and December 2015. The mean follow-up time was 52 ± 35 months (range 8–120 months). The mean incision length was 6 ± 2.22 cm (range 3.9–8.9 cm). No patient required conversion to median sternotomy. All patients were satisfied with the cosmetic results at the follow-up assessment. No chest deformity or asymmetrical development of the breast was observed. Although there was no severe morbidity and operative mortality, ten late deaths occurred, 8 of which were due to cardiac causes and the other 2 to non-cardiac causes. RVIAT offers encouraging short- and long-term patient survival results and is a safe and reproducible approach with excellent late results. RVIAT should be considered as an alternative to conventional median sternotomy.

Review of minimal access versus transcatheter aortic valve replacement for patients with severe aortic stenosis

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (miniAVR) have become alternatives to surgical aortic valve replacement via median sternotomy (SAVR) to treat severe aortic stenosis (AS). Despite increased interest and utilization, few studies have directly compared TAVR and miniAVR. A review of the current literature shows TAVR to be an indispensable tool for inoperable, high-risk, and perhaps intermediate-risk patients with severe AS. However, it is associated with a number of deleterious perioperative outcomes, such as valvular regurgitation and vascular complications. MiniAVR is associated with decreased intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay, a lower incidence of blood transfusions, decreased ventilation time, and improved cosmetic results. MiniAVR maintains potential advantages over SAVR, including the implantation of a durable prosthesis and low rates of perioperative myocardial infarction and paravalvular leak. It is associated with longer aortic cross clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) times; however, the use of sutureless valve implants can circumvent this. Studies comparing TAVR and miniAVR demonstrate decreased postoperative mortality, valvular regurgitation, and incidence of stroke in the miniAVR cohorts. Few studies currently exist comparing TAVR and miniAVR, as it is hard to compare the typically low-risk miniAVR versus high-risk TAVR patient populations. It is clear that both strategies will be cornerstones in the modern AVR era, but the situations in which to apply each strategy have not yet been clearly delineated. This highlights the need for surgeons to adopt these minimally invasive techniques. We believe there is a compelling role for miniAVR in low- and intermediate-risk patients, but due to the paucity of data, neither TAVR nor miniAVR should be discounted before a randomized, risk-stratified trial is performed. More studies are needed to compare TAVR and miniAVR in low- and intermediate-risk patients.