Aortic Valve Replacement through Right Minithoracotomy in 306 Consecutive Patients

Minimally Invasive Aortic Valve Replacement via Right Anterior Minithoracotomy and Central Aortic Cannulation

Objective

This study reports the evolution of a minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (mini-AVR) technique that uses a right anterior minithoracotomy approach with central cannulation, for a 13-year period. This technique has become our standard approach for isolated primary AVR in nearly all patients.

Methods

This observational study evaluated perioperative clinical outcomes of patients 18 years or older who underwent mini-AVR from November 2003 to June 2015.

Results

The mini-AVR technique was used in 202 patients during two periods of 2003 to 2009 (n = 65, “early”) and 2010 to 2015 (n = 137, “late”). The mean ± SD age was 72.5 ± 12.9 years and 60% were male. Demographic parameters were statistically similar between the study periods, except for increased body weight in the later period (75.3 ± 14.7 vs 80.9 ± 20.8 kg, P = 0.03). The mean cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic cross-clamp times were significantly different by each year and Bonferroni adjustment, with significant decreases in cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic cross-clamp times beginning 2006. Compared with the early study period, late study period patients were more often extubated intraoperatively (52% vs 12%, P < 0.001), had less frequent prolonged ventilator use postoperatively (6% vs 16%, P = 0.018), required fewer blood transfusions (mean, 2.0 ± 2.3 U vs 3.6 ± 3.0 U; P = 0.011), and had shorter postoperative stay (6.3 ± 4.5 days vs 8.0 ± 5.9 days, P = 0.026). Numerically, fewer postoperative strokes (1% vs 6%, P = 0.09) and fewer reoperations for bleeding (3% vs 6%, P = 0.3) occurred in the late period. In-hospital mortality did not differ (1/65 early vs 3/137 late).

Conclusions

Overall mini-AVR intraoperative and postoperative clinical outcomes improved for this 13-year experience.

Clinical Safety and Effectiveness of Endoaortic as Compared to Transthoracic Clamp for Small Thoracotomy Mitral Valve Surgery: Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies

Controversies remain on the increased rate of neurological events after small thoracotomy mitral valve surgery attributed to endoaortic balloon occlusion (EABO). Systematic literature search of databases identified 17 studies enrolling 6,643 patients comparing safety and effectiveness of EABO versus transthoracic clamp. In a meta-analysis, there was no difference in occurrence of cerebrovascular events, all-cause mortality, and kidney injury. EABO was associated with a significantly higher risk of iatrogenic aortic dissection (0.93% versus 0.13%; risk ratio, 4.67; 95% confidence interval, 1.62 to 13.49; p = 0.004) and a trend toward longer operative times. The data is limited to observational studies.

Aortic valve replacement via right minithoracotomy versus median sternotomy: a propensity score analysis

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to define the relative role of a right minithoracotomy (RT) versus standard median sternotomy (ST) for open aortic valve replacement (AVR).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed of all 1348 patients undergoing isolated, open AVR at a single institution during a 14-year period. Because relatively few patients were technically suitable for redo AVR with the RT approach (n = 20), all redo patients (n = 209) were excluded, leaving 1139 patients available for analysis. Patients converting from RT to ST approach (n = 15) were analyzed separately.

RESULTS

Relative to ST (n = 672), the RT patients (n = 452) were older with more stenosis but with more recent operation year, lower rate of congestive heart failure, higher ejection fraction, lower rate of endocarditis, and lower rate of renal disease than the ST AVR patients (all P < 0.0001). Right minithoracotomy AVR was associated with longer cardiopulmonary bypass times [157 (25) vs 131 (38), P = 0.0004] and clamp times [103 (20) vs 85 (27), P < 0.0001] but less transfusion (1.4 vs 3.4 U, P = 0.0003), less chest tube output (405 vs 950 mL, P < 0.0001), fewer reoperations for bleeding (0.4% vs 4%, P < 0.0001), shorter length of stay (6 vs 8 days, P = 0.03), and lower rate of atrial fibrillation (15% vs 20%, P = 0.03). Stroke, operative mortality, and survival were not significantly different between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the biases of retrospective propensity-adjusted analysis, these data suggest that RT AVR is a safe alternative to ST AVR in selected patients, with advantages of avoiding sternotomy with associated bleeding, transfusion, and delayed wound healing, at the expense of longer pump and clamp times.

Right anterior thoracotomy aortic valve replacement is associated with less cost than sternotomy-based approaches: a multi-institution analysis of 'real world' data

BACKGROUND

Large institutional analyses demonstrating outcomes of right anterior mini-thoracotomy (RAT) for isolated aortic valve replacement (isoAVR) do not exist. In this study, a group of cardiac surgeons who routinely perform minimally invasive isoAVR analyzed a cross-section of US hospital records in order to analyze outcomes of RAT as compared to sternotomy.

METHODS

The Premier database was queried from 2007-2011 for clinical and cost data for patients undergoing isoAVR. This de-identified database contains billing, hospital cost, and coding data from >600 US facilities with information from >25 million inpatient discharges. Expert rules were developed to identify patients with RAT and those with any sternal incision (aStern). Propensity matching created groups adjusted for patient differences. The impact of surgical approach on outcomes and costs was modeled using regression analysis and, where indicated, adjusting for hospital size and geographical differences.

RESULTS

AVR was performed in 27,051 patients. Analysis identified isoAVR by RAT (n = 1572) and by aStern (n = 3962). Propensity matching created two groups of 921 patients. RAT was more likely performed in southern hospitals (63% vs 36%; p < 0.01), teaching hospitals (66% vs 58%; p < 0.01) and larger hospitals (47% vs 30%; p < 0.01). There was significantly less blood product cost associated with RAT ($1381 vs $1912; p < 0.001). After adjusting for hospital differences, RAT was associated with lower cost than aStern ($38,769 vs $42,656; p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Outcomes analyses can be performed from hospital administrative collective databases. This real world analysis demonstrates comparable outcomes and less cost and ICU time with RAT for AVR.