Manubrium-limited ministernotomy versus conventional sternotomy for aortic valve replacement (MAVRIC): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Effects of interventions targeting the systemic inflammatory response to cardiac surgery on clinical outcomes in adults

BACKGROUND

Organ injury is a common and severe complication of cardiac surgery that contributes to the majority of deaths. There are no effective treatment or prevention strategies. It has been suggested that innate immune system activation may have a causal role in organ injury. A wide range of organ protection interventions targeting the innate immune response have been evaluated in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in adult cardiac surgery patients, with inconsistent results in terms of effectiveness.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the review was to summarise the results of RCTs of organ protection interventions targeting the innate immune response in adult cardiac surgery. The review considered whether the interventions had a treatment effect on inflammation, important clinical outcomes, or both.

SEARCH METHODS

CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, conference proceedings and two trial registers were searched on October 2022 together with reference checking to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs comparing organ protection interventions targeting the innate immune response versus placebo or no treatment in adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery where the treatment effect on innate immune activation and on clinical outcomes of interest were reported.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Searches, study selection, quality assessment, and data extractions were performed independently by pairs of authors. The primary inflammation outcomes were peak IL-6 and IL-8 concentrations in blood post-surgery. The primary clinical outcome was in-hospital or 30-day mortality. Treatment effects were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Meta-analyses were performed using random effects models, and heterogeneity was assessed using I2.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 40,255 participants from 328 RCTs were included in the synthesis. The effects of treatments on IL-6 (SMD -0.77, 95% CI -0.97 to -0.58, I2 = 92%) and IL-8 (SMD -0.92, 95% CI -1.20 to -0.65, I2 = 91%) were unclear due to heterogeneity. Heterogeneity for inflammation outcomes persisted across multiple sensitivity and moderator analyses. The pooled treatment effect for in-hospital or 30-day mortality was RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.91, I2 = 0%, suggesting a significant clinical benefit. There was little or no treatment effect on mortality when analyses were restricted to studies at low risk of bias. Post hoc analyses failed to demonstrate consistent treatment effects on inflammation and clinical outcomes. Levels of certainty for pooled treatment effects on the primary outcomes were very low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

A systematic review of RCTs of organ protection interventions targeting innate immune system activation did not resolve uncertainty as to the effectiveness of these treatments, or the role of innate immunity in organ injury following cardiac surgery.

Minimal Access Aortic Valve Surgery

Minimally invasive approaches to the aortic valve have been described since 1993, with great hopes that they would become universal and facilitate day-case cardiac surgery. The literature has shown that these procedures can be undertaken with equivalent mortality rates, similar operative times, comparable costs, and some benefits regarding hospital length of stay. The competing efforts of transcatheter aortic valve implantation for these same outcomes have provided an excellent range of treatment options for patients from cardiology teams. We describe the current state of the art, including technical considerations, caveats, and complications of minimal access aortic surgery and predict future directions in this space.

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.

Minimally-invasive cardiac surgery: a bibliometric analysis of impact and force to identify key and facilitating advanced training

Background

The number of citations an article receives is a marker of its scientific influence within a particular specialty. This bibliometric analysis intended to recognise the top 100 cited articles in minimally-invasive cardiac surgery, to determine the fundamental subject areas that have borne considerable influence upon clinical practice and academic knowledge whilst also considering bibliometric scope. This is increasingly relevant in a continually advancing specialty and one where minimally-invasive cardiac procedures have the potential for huge benefits to patient outcomes.

Methods

The Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics) data citation index database was searched with the following terms: [Minimal* AND Invasive* AND Card* AND Surg*]. Results were limited to full text English language manuscripts and ranked by citation number. Further analysis of the top 100 cited articles was carried out according to subject, author, publication year, journal, institution and country of origin.

Results

A total of 4716 eligible manuscripts were retrieved. Of the top 100 papers, the median (range) citation number was 101 (51–414). The most cited paper by Lichtenstein et al. (Circulation 114(6):591–596, 2006) published in Circulation with 414 citations focused on transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation as a viable alternative to aortic valve replacement with cardiopulmonary bypass in selected patients with aortic stenosis. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery published the most papers and received the most citations (n = 35; 3036 citations). The United States of America had the most publications and citations (n = 52; 5303 citations), followed by Germany (n = 27; 2598 citations). Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, published the most papers of all institutions. Minimally-invasive cardiac surgery pertaining to valve surgery (n = 42) and coronary artery bypass surgery (n = 30) were the two most frequent topics by a large margin.

Conclusions

This work establishes a comprehensive and informative analysis of the most influential publications in minimally-invasive cardiac surgery and outlines what constitutes a citable article. Undertaking a quantitative evaluation of the top 100 papers aids in recognising the contributions of key authors and institutions as well as guiding future efforts in this field to continually improve the quality of care offered to complex cardiac patients.

Mini-sternotomy versus conventional sternotomy for aortic valve replacement: a randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare clinical and health economic outcomes after manubrium-limited mini-sternotomy (intervention) and conventional median sternotomy (usual care).

DESIGN

A single-blind, randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

Single centre UK National Health Service tertiary hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR) surgery.

INTERVENTIONS

Intervention was manubrium-limited mini-sternotomy performed using a 5-7 cm midline incision. Usual care was median sternotomy performed using a midline incision from the sternal notch to the xiphisternum.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who received a red cell transfusion postoperatively and within 7 days of index surgery. Secondary outcomes included proportion of patients receiving a non-red cell blood component transfusion and number of units transfused within 7 days and during index hospital stay, quality of life and cost-effectiveness analyses.

RESULTS

270 patients were randomised, received surgery and contributed to the intention to treat analysis. No difference between mini and conventional sternotomy in red-cell transfusion within 7 days was found; 23/135 patients in each arm received a transfusion, OR 1.0 (95% CI 0.5 to 2.0) and risk difference 0.0 (95% CI -0.1 to 0.1). Mini-sternotomy reduced chest drain losses (mean 181.6 mL (SD 138.7) vs conventional, mean 306·9 mL (SD 348.6)); this did not reduce red-cell transfusions. Mean valve size and postoperative valve function were comparable between mini-sternotomy and conventional groups; 23 mm vs 24 mm and 6/134 moderate or severe aortic regurgitation vs 3/130, respectively. Mini-sternotomy resulted in longer bypass (82.7 min (SD 23.5) vs 59.6 min (SD 15.1)) and cross-clamp times (64.1 min (SD 17.1) vs 46·3 min (SD 10.7)). Conventional sternotomy was more cost-effective with only a 5.8% probability of mini-sternotomy being cost-effective at a willingness to pay of £20 000/QALY (Quality Adjusted Life Years).

CONCLUSIONS

AVR via mini-sternotomy did not reduce red blood cell transfusion within 7 days following surgery when compared with conventional sternotomy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN29567910; Results.

Current Surgical Risk Scores Overestimate Risk in Minimally Invasive Aortic Valve Replacement

OBJECTIVE

Risk-scoring systems for surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) were largely derived from sternotomy cases. We evaluated the accuracy of current risk scores in predicting outcomes after minimally invasive AVR (mini-AVR). Because transcatheter AVR (TAVR) is being considered for use in low-risk patients with aortic stenosis, accurate mini-AVR risk assessment is necessary.

METHODS

We reviewed 1,018 consecutive isolated mini-AVR cases (2009 to 2015). After excluding patients with Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality (STS-PROM) scores ≥4, we calculated each patient's European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE) II, TAVR Risk Score (TAVR-RS), and age, creatinine, and ejection fraction score (ACEF). We compared all 4 scores' accuracy in predicting mini-AVR 30-day mortality by computing each score's observed-to-expected mortality ratio (O:E). Area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves tested discrimination, and the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit tested calibration.

RESULTS

Among 941 patients (mean age, 72 ± 12 years), 6 deaths occurred within 30 days (actual mortality rate, 0.6%). All 4 scoring systems overpredicted expected mortality after mini-AVR: ACEF (1.4%), EuroSCORE II (1.9%), STS-PROM (2.0%), and TAVR-RS (2.1%). STS-PROM best estimated risk for patients with STS-PROM scores 0 to <1 (0.6 O:E), ACEF for patients with STS-PROM scores 2 to <3 (0.6 O:E), and TAVR-RS for patients with STS-PROM scores 3 to <4 (0.7 O:E). ROC curves showed only fair discrimination and calibration across all risk scores.

CONCLUSIONS

In low-risk patients who underwent mini-AVR, current surgical scoring systems overpredicted mortality 2-to-3-fold. Alternative dedicated scoring systems for mini-AVR are needed for more accurate outcomes assessment.

Does Blood Transfusion Have an Effect on Outcomes After Aortic Valve Replacement Surgery?

OBJECTIVE

Long-term outcomes following surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) are excellent. However, there is a significant early morbidity burden. Red cell transfusion is common in the perioperative period and deleterious effects of receiving a transfusion on early postoperative morbidity are well described in observational studies. This study aimed to assess the effect of transfusion on ischaemic or infective outcomes after aortic valve replacement.

METHODS

Data from 270 patients enrolled in the Manubrium-limited ministernotomy versus conventional sternotomy for aortic valve replacement (MAVRIC) randomised controlled trial was used to create two cohorts, patients that received red cell transfusions following AVR and those that did not. Propensity score matching was performed to limit the effect of confounding variables. Strict transfusion thresholds were maintained, with patients receiving a transfusion if haemoglobin concentration fell below 80 g/L, or if significant bleeding or haemodynamic instability occurred. The primary outcome was a composite of ischaemic event (myocardial infarction, permanent stroke, gut ischaemia or acute kidney injury) or serious infection (sepsis, endocarditis, respiratory tract or wound infection). Patients were followed for 12 weeks following surgery.

RESULTS

Sixty-three (63) of 270 patients received a red cell transfusion (23.3%). Transfused patients had significantly lower body mass index (BMI), a higher proportion of females, a lower preoperative haemoglobin and haematocrit, a higher EuroSCORE II score, worse renal function and were more likely to have undergone urgent surgery compared to the unadjusted control cohort. Once matched, there was no difference in the primary outcome between cohorts. There was a significantly increased length of hospital stay in the transfused group (median 7 days transfused, median 5 days not-transfused, p=0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Red cell transfusion, using a transfusion threshold of 80 g/L, does not appear to be associated with adverse ischaemic or infective outcomes after aortic valve replacement.

Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement with central cannulation: A cost-benefit analysis in a developing country

Background

Minimally-invasive approaches to aortic valve replacement (MIAVR) are technically and logistically demanding. However, few centers have started using these approaches with standard equipment because of the limited resources. We sought to report intra- and postoperative clinical outcomes and address health resource utilization after MIAVR.

Results

A total of 102 eligible patients who had aortic valve replacement were enrolled in a prospective, multicenter cohort study conducted from June 2015 to December 2017. Fifty patients underwent aortic valve surgery via upper inverted T-shaped hemi-sternotomy (MS), and 52 patients were operated using full sternotomy (FS) in two centers in a developing country. Central cannulation was performed in all cases. Major adverse cardiac events, pain, and wound complications were compared. A cost analysis was performed, and exposure and feasibility for cannulation were assessed. The mean length of MS skin incision was 5.82 ± 0.67 cm. Cumulative cross-clamp time was insignificant between both groups (91.87 ± 34.41 versus 94.91 ± 33.96 min; p = 0.66). MS exhibited shorter ventilation time (6.18 ± 1.86 versus 10.68 ± 12.78 h; p = 0.029) and intensive care stays (33.27 ± 19.75 versus 49.42 ± 47.1 h; p = 0.037). Major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) were compared, and MS group exhibited fewer transfusions (1.18 ± 0.89 versus 1.7 ± 0.97 units; p = 0.002), fewer pulmonary complications (1 (2%) versus 2 (3.8%); p < 0.001), and less sternotomy wound infection (1 (2%) versus 5 (9.6%); p = 0.048). Total operative mortality of 4.46% was recorded (n = 5). Significant cost reduction was recorded favoring MS; central cannulation saved $907.16 and carried a total cost reduction of $580 (9.3%) when compared with the FS approach (p < 0.0001).

Conclusions

With a lack of logistics in developing countries, MIAVR not only has a cosmetic advantage but carries a significant reduction in blood use, respiratory complications, pain, and cost. MIAVR can be feasible, with a rapid learning curve in developing centers.

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.

Limited versus full sternotomy for aortic valve replacement

BACKGROUND

Aortic valve disease is a common condition that is easily treatable with cardiac surgery. This is conventionally performed by opening the sternum longitudinally down the centre ("median sternotomy") and replacing the valve under cardiopulmonary bypass. Median sternotomy is generally well tolerated, but as less invasive options have become available, the efficacy of limited incisions has been called into question. In particular, the effects of reducing the visibility and surgical access has raised safety concerns with regards to the placement of cannulae, venting of the heart, epicardial wire placement, and de-airing of the heart at the end of the procedure. These difficulties may increase operating times, affecting outcome. The benefits of smaller incisions are thought to include decreased pain; improved respiratory mechanics; reductions in wound infections, bleeding, and need for transfusion; shorter intensive care stay; better cosmesis; and a quicker return to normal activity.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of minimally invasive aortic valve replacement via a limited sternotomy versus conventional aortic valve replacement via median sternotomy in people with aortic valve disease requiring surgical replacement.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, clinical trials registries, and manufacturers' websites from inception to July 2016, with no language limitations. We reviewed references of identified papers to identify any further studies of relevance.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing aortic valve replacement via a median sternotomy versus aortic valve replacement via a limited sternotomy. We excluded trials that performed other minimally invasive incisions such as mini-thoracotomies, port access, trans-apical, trans-femoral or robotic procedures. Although some well-conducted prospective and retrospective case-control and cohort studies exist, these were not included in this review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial papers to extract data, assess quality, and identify risk of bias. A third review author provided arbitration where required. The quality of evidence was determined using the GRADE methodology and results of patient-relevant outcomes were summarised in a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

The review included seven trials with 511 participants. These included adults from centres in Austria, Spain, Italy, Germany, France, and Egypt. We performed 12 comparisons investigating the effects of minimally invasive limited upper hemi-sternotomy on aortic valve replacement as compared to surgery performed via full median sternotomy.There was no evidence of any effect of upper hemi-sternotomy on mortality versus full median sternotomy (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 2.82; participants = 511; studies = 7; moderate quality). There was no evidence of an increase in cardiopulmonary bypass time with aortic valve replacement performed via an upper hemi-sternotomy (mean difference (MD) 3.02 minutes, 95% CI -4.10 to 10.14; participants = 311; studies = 5; low quality). There was no evidence of an increase in aortic cross-clamp time (MD 0.95 minutes, 95% CI -3.45 to 5.35; participants = 391; studies = 6; low quality). None of the included studies reported major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events as a composite end point.There was no evidence of an effect on length of hospital stay through limited hemi-sternotomy (MD -1.31 days, 95% CI -2.63 to 0.01; participants = 297; studies = 5; I2 = 89%; very low quality). Postoperative blood loss was lower in the upper hemi-sternotomy group (MD -158.00 mL, 95% CI -303.24 to -12.76; participants = 297; studies = 5; moderate quality). The evidence did not support a reduction in deep sternal wound infections (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.22 to 2.30; participants = 511; studies = 7; moderate quality) or re-exploration (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.48 to 2.13; participants = 511; studies = 7; moderate quality). There was no change in pain scores by upper hemi-sternotomy (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.33, 95% CI -0.85 to 0.20; participants = 197; studies = 3; I2 = 70%; very low quality), but there was a small increase in postoperative pulmonary function tests with minimally invasive limited sternotomy (MD 1.98 % predicted FEV1, 95% CI 0.62 to 3.33; participants = 257; studies = 4; I2 = 28%; low quality). There was a small reduction in length of intensive care unit stays as a result of the minimally invasive upper hemi-sternotomy (MD -0.57 days, 95% CI -0.93 to -0.20; participants = 297; studies = 5; low quality). Postoperative atrial fibrillation was not reduced with minimally invasive aortic valve replacement through limited compared to full sternotomy (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.07 to 4.89; participants = 240; studies = 3; moderate quality), neither were postoperative ventilation times (MD -1.12 hours, 95% CI -3.43 to 1.19; participants = 297; studies = 5; low quality). None of the included studies reported cost analyses.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence in this review was assessed as generally low to moderate quality. The study sample sizes were small and underpowered to demonstrate differences in outcomes with low event rates. Clinical heterogeneity both between and within studies is a relatively fixed feature of surgical trials, and this also contributed to the need for caution in interpreting results.Considering these limitations, there was uncertainty of the effect on mortality or extracorporeal support times with upper hemi-sternotomy for aortic valve replacement compared to full median sternotomy. The evidence to support a reduction in total hospital length of stay or intensive care stay was low in quality. There was also uncertainty of any difference in the rates of other, secondary outcome measures or adverse events with minimally invasive limited sternotomy approaches to aortic valve replacement.There appears to be uncertainty between minimally invasive aortic valve replacement via upper hemi-sternotomy and conventional aortic valve replacement via a full median sternotomy. Before widespread adoption of the minimally invasive approach can be recommended, there is a need for a well-designed and adequately powered prospective randomised controlled trial. Such a study would benefit from performing a robust cost analysis. Growing patient preference for minimally invasive techniques merits thorough quality-of-life analyses to be included as end points, as well as quantitative measures of physiological reserve.