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

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.

Early Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Right Anterior Thoracotomy vs. Median Full Sternotomy in Isolated Aortic Valve Replacement: A Propensity Score Analysis

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to compare the early postoperative outcomes of right anterior thoracotomy minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (RAT-MIAVR) surgery with those of median full sternotomy aortic valve replacement (MFS-AVR) approach with the goal of identifying potential benefits or drawbacks of each technique.

METHODS

This retrospective, observational, cohort study included 476 patients who underwent RAT-MIAVR or MFS-AVR in our hospital from January 2015 to January 2023. Of these, 107 patients (22.5%) underwent RAT-MIAVR, and 369 patients (77.5%) underwent MFS-AVR. Propensity score matching was used to minimize selection bias, resulting in 95 patients per group for analysis.

RESULTS

After propensity matching, two groups were comparable in preoperative characteristics. RAT-MIAVR group showed longer cardiopulmonary bypass time (130.24 ± 31.15 vs. 117.75 ± 36.29 minutes, P=0.012), aortic cross-clamping time (76.44 ± 18.00 vs. 68.49 ± 19.64 minutes, P=0.004), and longer operative time than MFS-AVR group (358.47 ± 67.11 minutes vs. 322.42 ± 63.84 minutes, P=0.000). RAT-MIAVR was associated with decreased hospitalization time after surgery, lower postoperative blood loss and drainage fluid, a reduced incidence of mediastinitis, increased left ventricular ejection fraction, and lower pacemaker use compared to MFS-AVR. However, there was no significant difference in the incidence of major complications and in-hospital mortality between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

RAT-MIAVR is a feasible and safe alternative procedure to MFS-AVR, with comparable in-hospital mortality and early follow-up. This minimally invasive approach may be a suitable option for patients requiring isolated aortic valve replacement.

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.

Minimally invasive versus conventional aortic valve replacement: The network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Outcome comparisons after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) with minimally invasive approaches including mini-sternotomy (MS) and right mini-thoracotomy (RMT) and full sternotomy (FS) have been conflicting. Furthermore, the synthesis of mid-term mortality has not been performed.

METHODS

MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched through April 2022 to identify propensity score matched (PSM) studies or randomized controlled trial (RCT) which compared outcomes following SAVR among three incisional approaches: FS, MS, or RMT. The network analysis was performed to compare these approaches with random effects model. Mid-term mortality was defined as 1-year mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 42 studies met the inclusion criteria enrolling 14,925 patients. RCT and PSM were performed in 13 and 29 studies, respectively. The operative mortality was significantly lower with MS compared to FS (risk ratio [RR]: 0.60, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.41-0.90, p = .01, I²  = 25.8%) or RMT (RR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.27-0.97, p = .03, I²  = 25.8%). RMT had significantly higher risk of reoperation for bleeding compared to MS (RR: 1.65, 95% CI: 1.18-2.30, p = .003, I²  = 0%). Hospital length of stay was significantly shorter with MS compared to FS (mean difference: -0.89 days, 95% CI: -1.58 to -0.2, p = .01, I²  = 95.5%) while it was equivocal between FS and RMT. The mid-term mortality was similar among the three approaches.

CONCLUSIONS

While mid-term mortality was comparable among approaches, MS may be a safe and potentially more effective approach than FS and RMT for SAVR in the short term.