Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement in high risk patient groups

Minimally Invasive and Full Sternotomy Aortic Valve Replacements Lead to Comparable Long-Term Outcomes in Elderly Higher-Risk Patients: A Propensity-Matched Comparison

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (AVR) via upper ministernotomy (MiniAVR) is a standard alternative to full sternotomy access. Minimally invasive cardiac surgery has been proven to provide a number of benefits to patients. The aim of this study was to compare the short- and long-term outcomes after MiniAVR versus conventional AVR via full sternotomy (FS) using a biological prosthesis in an elderly higher-risk population.

METHODS

Between January 2006 and July 2009, 918 consecutive patients received AVR ± additional procedures with different prostheses at our center. Amongst them, 441 received isolated AVR using a biological prosthesis (median age of 74.5; range: 52-93 years; 50% females) and formed the study population (EuroSCORE II: 3.62 ± 5.5, range: 0.7-42). In total, 137 (31.1%) of the operations were carried out through FS, and 304 (68.9%) were carried out via MiniAVR. Follow-up was complete in 96% of the cases (median of 7.6 years, 6610 patient-years). Propensity score matching (PSM) resulted in two groups of 68 patients with very similar baseline profiles. The primary endpoints were long-term survival, freedom from reoperation, and endocarditis, and the secondary endpoints were early major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs).

RESULTS

FS led to shorter cardio-pulmonary bypass and aortic cross-clamp durations: 90 (47-194) vs. 100 (46-246) min (p = 0.039) and 57 (33-156) vs. 69 (32-118) min (p = 0.006), respectively. Perioperative stroke occurred in three patients (4.4%; FS) vs. one patient (1.5%; MiniAVR) (p = 0.506). The 30-day mortality was similar in both groups (2.9%, p = 1.000). Survival at 1, 5, and 10 years was 94.1 ± 3% (FS and MiniAVR), 80.3 ± 5% vs. 75.7 ± 5%, and 45.3 ± 6% vs. 43.8 ± 6%, respectively (p = 0.767). There were two (2.9%) reoperations in each group and two thrombo-embolic events (2.9%) vs. one (1.5%) thrombo-embolic event in the MiniAVR and FS groups, respectively (p = 0.596).

CONCLUSIONS

In comparison to FS, MiniAVR provided similar short- and long-term outcomes in a higher-risk elderly population receiving biological prostheses. In particular, long-term survival, freedom from reoperation, and the incidence of endocarditis were comparable. These results clearly advocate for the routine use of MiniAVR as a standard procedure for AVR, even in a high-risk population.

Mini-sternotomy versus full sternotomy for isolated aortic valve replacement: A single-center experience

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive approaches to isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR) are well-described and widely utilized. While there are numerous proposed benefits, there is limited literature describing significant morbidity or mortality benefits for minimally invasive isolated AVR resulting in hesitancy in its universal adoption. In this retrospective study, we compare the 5-year outcomes of patients undergoing isolated AVR via full sternotomy (FS) or mini-sternotomy (MS).

METHODS

756 patients underwent isolated AVR between 2014 and 2019. Propensity matching resulted in 142 matched pairs that received either FS or MS. The primary outcome was mortality during the follow-up period. Secondary outcomes included intraoperative variables and postoperative morbidity.

RESULTS

Intraoperative variables including total operative, cardiopulmonary bypass, and aortic cross-clamp times did not differ significantly between groups. Postoperative mortality was similar between the matched groups with nonsignificant differences at 30 days (2.12% vs. 1.4%, p = .657), 1 year (4.9% vs. 2.1%, p = .0.223), and 5 years (7.5% vs. 3.5%, p = .174). Rates of postoperative morbidity were comparable between groups with no significant differences.

CONCLUSION

This study examined the long-term outcomes of propensity-matched patients undergoing isolated AVR via FS or MS and identified no significant differences in outcomes over a 5-year follow-up period. The decision for surgical approach is multifactorial and should be decided on a case-by-case basis taking into consideration patient anatomy, surgeon experience, and comfort, as well as patient preference.

Surgical outcomes of minimally invasive aortic valve replacement via right mini-thoracotomy for hemodialysis patients

OBJECTIVES

Minimally invasive valve surgery has become increasingly accepted as an alternative to conventional median sternotomy in low-risk patients. However, there have been no reports regarding the outcomes of this procedure on high-risk hemodialysis patients. The purpose of this investigation was to assess the surgical outcomes of minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (AVR) via right mini-thoracotomy (MIAVR) in hemodialysis patients compared with those of conventional AVR (CAVR) via full sternotomy.

METHODS

Two hundred and seventy-four patients underwent isolated AVR for severe AS, and 42 hemodialysis patients were included in this study. MIAVR was performed in 17 cases and CAVR in 25 cases. We compared the short-term surgical outcome among the two groups.

RESULTS

There was no difference in the aortic cross-clamp or cardiopulmonary bypass time. However, the procedure time was significantly shorter in the MIAVR group. Patients in the MIAVR group had less bleeding and a smaller amount of transfused red blood cells. There were four hospital deaths (18.2%) in the CAVR group. For postoperative complications, there were 2 (9.1%) cerebrovascular incidents, 2 (9.1%) cases of respiratory failure, 1 (4.5%) re-exploration for bleeding in CAVR group. The postoperative ventilation time was significantly shorter in the MIAVR group. There was no difference in the length of postoperative intensive care unit stay or of postoperative hospital stay.

CONCLUSION

The surgical outcomes of MIAVR in hemodialysis patients were acceptable, with a low incidence of morbidity, reasonable lengths of hospital stay, and no mortality among the patients studied.

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.

Minimally-invasive versus transcatheter aortic valve implantation: systematic review with meta-analysis of propensity-matched studies

Background

Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MiAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) provide aortic valve replacement (AVR) by less invasive methods than conventional surgical AVR, by avoiding complete sternotomy. This study directly compares and analyses the available evidence for early outcomes between these two AVR methods.

Methods

Electronic databases were searched from inception until August 2019 for studies comparing MiAVR to TAVI, according to predefined search criteria. Propensity-matched studies with sufficient data were included in a meta-analysis.

Results

Eight studies with 9,744 patients were included in the quantitative analysis. Analysis of risk-matched patients showed no difference in early mortality (RR 0.76, 95% CI, 0.37–1.54, P=0.44). MiAVR had a signal towards lower rate of postoperative stroke, although this did not reach statistical significance (OR 0.42, 95% CI, 0.13–1.29, P=0.13). MiAVR had significantly lower rates of new pacemaker (PPM) requirement (OR 0.29, 95% CI, 0.16–0.52, P<0.0001) and postoperative aortic insufficiency (AI) or paravalvular leak (PVL) (OR 0.05, 95% CI, 0.01–0.20, P<0.0001) compared to TAVI, (OR 0.42, 95% CI, 0.13–1.29, P=0.13), while acute kidney injury (AKI) was higher in MiAVR compared to TAVI (11.1% vs. 5.2%, OR 2.28, 95% CI, 1.25–4.16, P=0.007).

Conclusions

In patients of equivalent surgical risk scores, MiAVR may be performed with lower rates of postoperative PPM requirement and AI/PVL, higher rates of AKI and no statistical difference in postoperative stroke or short-term mortality, compared to TAVI. Further prospective trials are needed to validate these results.

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.

Early and late outcomes after transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in obese patients

INTRODUCTION

Data on the early and late outcome following transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in obese patients are limited. We investigated whether TAVI may be superior to SAVR in obese patients.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Obese patients (body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m²) who underwent either SAVR or TAVI were identified from the nationwide OBSERVANT registry, and their in-hospital and long-term outcomes were analysed. Propensity score matching was employed to identify two cohorts with similar baseline characteristics.

RESULTS

The propensity score matching provided 142 pairs balanced in terms of baseline risk factors. In-hospital and 30-day mortality did not differ between SAVR and TAVI obese patients (4.6% vs. 3.3%, p = 0.56, and 5.2% vs. 3.2%, p = 0.41, respectively). Obese SAVR patients experienced a higher rate of renal failure (12.4% vs. 3.6%, p = 0.0105) and blood transfusion requirement (60.3% vs. 25.7%, p < 0.0001) in comparison with TAVI patients. A higher rate of permanent pacemaker implantation (14.4% vs. 3.6%, p = 0.0018), and major vascular injuries (7.4% vs. 0%, p = 0.0044) occurred in the TAVI group. Five-year survival was higher in the SAVR group compared to the TAVI patient cohort (p = 0.0046), with survival estimates at 1, 3 and 5 years of 88.0%, 80.3%, 71.8% for patients undergoing SAVR, and 85.2%, 69.0%, 52.8% for those subjected to TAVI procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

In obese patients, both SAVR and TAVI are valid treatment options, although in the long term SAVR exhibited higher survival rates.

Planning for minimally invasive aortic valve replacement: key steps for patient assessment

Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MIAVR) has proved to be a safe approach for the treatment of aortic valve stenosis and/or insufficiency and is associated with a number of additional benefits for patients. This includes reduced blood loss, reduced transfusion requirements, reduced length of hospital stay and improved aesthetic appearance. As all types of minimally invasive surgery rely on optimizing exposure within a more limited field of view, a thorough preoperative assessment of patients is important to identify and address potential exposure problems. MIAVR through an upper hemisternotomy is considered feasible in almost every patient, but various clinical conditions or anatomical variations can complicate the procedure and may impact on the postoperative outcome. MIAVR through an anterior right thoracotomy requires suitable anatomy, and this should be evaluated preoperatively through a computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging scan. In this review, we aimed to present an overview of the current literature and to reflect on our personal experiences with MIAVR techniques. This should provide an aid-especially to surgeons wanting to start or have little experience with MIAVR-for a structured preoperative patient assessment and planning to increase the chance of a safe procedure with a good outcome.

Efficacy of Aortic Valve Replacement through Full Sternotomy and Minimal Invasion (Ministernotomy)

Background: new minimally invasive sternotomy (mini-sternotomy) procedures have improved the treatment outcome and reduced the incidence of perioperative complications leading to improved patient satisfaction and a reduced cost of aortic valve replacement in comparison to the conventional median sternotomy (full sternotomy). The aim of this study is to compare and gain new insights into operative and early postoperative outcomes, long-term postoperative results, and 5-year survival rates after aortic valve replacement through a ministernotomy and full sternotomy. Methods: This is a retrospective study of patients who underwent an isolated replacement of the aortic valve via a full sternotomy or ministernotomy from 2011 to 2016. From 2011 to 2016, 426 cardiac interventions were performed, 70 of which (16.4%) were of the ministernotomy and 356 (83.6%) of the full sternotomy. Through propensity score matching, 70 patients who underwent the ministernotomy (ministernotomy group) were compared with 70 patients who underwent the full sternotomy (control group). Results: in the propensity matching cohort, no statistical difference in operative time was noted (p = 0.856). The ministernotomy had longer cross clamp (88.7 ± 20.7 vs. 80.3 ± 24.6 min, p = 0.007) and bypass (144.0 ± 29.9 vs. 132.9 ± 44.9 min, p = 0.049) times, less ventilation time (9.7 ± 1.7 vs. 11.7 ± 1.4 h, p < 0.001), shorter hospital stay (18.3 ± 1.9 vs. 21.9 ± 1.9 days, p = 0.012), less 24-h chest tube drainage (256.2 ± 28.6 vs. 407.3 ± 40.37 mL, p < 0.001), fewer corrections of coagulopathy (p < 0.001), fewer patients receiving catecholamine (5.71 vs. 30.0%, p < 0.001) and better cosmetic results (p < 0.001). Moreover, the number of patients without complaints at 1 year after the operation was significantly greater in the ministernotomy group (p = 0.002), and no significant differences in the 5-year survival between the groups were observed. In the overall cohort, the ministernotomy had longer cross clamp times (88.7 ± 20.7 vs. 79.9 ± 24.8 min, p < 0.001), longer operative times (263.5 ± 62.0 vs. 246.7 ± 74.2 min, p = 0.037) and bypass times (144.0 ± 29.9 vs. 132.7 ± 44.5 min, p = 0.026), lower incidence of 30-day mortality (1(1.4) vs. 13(3.7), p = 0.022), shorter hospital stays post-surgery p = 0.025, less 24-h chest tube drainage, p < 0.001, and fewer corrections of coagulopathy (p < 0.001). Conclusions: the ministernotomy has a number of advantages compared with the full sternotomy and thus could be a better approach for aortic valve replacement.

Perioperative Care of the Obese Cardiac Surgical Patient

Morbid obesity is associated with impairment of cardiovascular, pulmonary, gastrointestinal, and renal physiology with significant perioperative consequences and has been linked with higher morbidity and mortality after cardiac surgery. Cardiac surgery patients have a higher incidence of difficult airway and difficult laryngoscopy than general surgery patients do, and obesity is associated with difficult mask ventilation and direct laryngoscopy. Positioning injuries occur more frequently because obese patients are at greater risk of pressure injury, such as rhabdomyolysis and compartment syndrome. Despite the association between obesity and several chronic disease states, the effects of obesity on perioperative outcomes are conflicting. Studies examining outcomes of overweight and obese patients in cardiac surgery have reported varying results. An "obesity paradox" has been described, in which the mortality for overweight and obese patients is lower compared with patients of normal weight. This review describes the physiologic abnormalities and clinical implications of obesity in cardiac surgery and summarizes recommendations for anesthesiologists to optimize perioperative care of the obese cardiac surgical patient.