Valve-sparing David procedure via minimally invasive access does not compromise outcome

Minimally invasive versus conventional methods for aortic root surgery: Choosing the right approach

OBJECTIVE

Partial upper sternotomy is preferred for isolated aortic valve replacement because of its optimal surgical visibility and favorable cosmetic outcomes; however, it is not commonly used for aortic root surgery, and the conventional median sternotomy is still the preferred method for most surgeons. We aimed to compare the safety and effectiveness of a minimally invasive approach (partial sternotomy [PS]) and conventional approach (median sternotomy [FS]) for aortic root surgery.

METHODS

Patients who underwent aortic root surgery at our hospital from 2016 to 2021 were retrospectively enrolled and divided into two groups. After propensity score matching, the conventional group included 156 patients and the minimally invasive group-57 patients.

RESULTS

Bicuspid aortic valves were observed in 63 (40.4%) and 33 (57.9%) patients in the FS and PS groups, respectively. Valve-sparing surgery was performed on 69 (44.2%) and 30 (52.6%) patients in the FS and PS groups, respectively. The minimally invasive approach was beneficial in terms of blood loss during the first 24 h after surgery (p = 0.029) and postoperative blood transfusion (p = 0.023). The survival rates and freedom from reoperation or severe aortic regurgitation after the David procedure were comparable between the standard and minimally invasive groups (p = 0.25; p = 0.66) at mid-term follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

A minimally invasive approach for aortic root surgery can be safely performed as the standard approach. Partial upper sternotomy has the advantage of lower blood loss in the early postoperative period and does not negatively affect the results of valve-sparing root replacement.

Minimally Invasive Approach for Replacement of the Ascending Aorta towards the Proximal Aortic Arch

Objectives: In recent years, minimally invasive approaches have been used with increasing frequency, even for more complex aortic procedures. However, evidence on the practicability and safety of expanding minimally invasive techniques from isolated operations of the ascending aorta towards more complex operations such as the hemiarch replacement is still scarce to date. Methods: A total of 86 patients undergoing elective surgical replacement of the ascending aorta with (n = 40) or without (n = 46) concomitant proximal aortic arch replacement between 2009 and 2023 were analyzed in a retrospective single-center analysis. Groups were compared regarding operation times, intra- and postoperative complications and long-term survival. Results: Operation times and ventilation times were significantly longer in the hemiarch replacement group. Despite this, no statistically significant differences between the two groups were observed for the duration of the ICU and hospital stay and postoperative complication rates. At ten-year follow-up, overall survival was 82.6% after isolated ascending aorta replacement and 86.3% after hemiarch replacement (p = 0.441). Conclusions: Expanding the indication for minimally invasive aortic surgery towards the proximal aortic arch resulted in comparable postoperative complication rates, length of hospital stay and overall long-term survival compared to the well-established minimally invasive isolated supracommissural ascending aorta replacement.

Comparative Analysis of Long-Term Outcomes in Valve-Sparing Aortic Root Reimplantation: Full Sternotomy versus Mini-Sternotomy Approach

Background: Aortic valve-sparing aortic root replacement (VSARR) David procedure has not been routinely performed via minimally invasive access due to its complexity. Methods: We compared our results for mini-VSARR to sternotomy-VSARR from another excellence center. Results: Eighty-four patients, 62 in the sternotomy-VSARR group and 22 in the mini-VSARR group, were included. A baseline, the aneurysm dimensions were higher in the mini-VSARR group. Propensity matching resulted in 17 pairs with comparable characteristics. Aortic cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times were significantly longer in the mini-VSARR group, by 60 and 20 min, respectively (p < 0.001). In-hospital outcomes were comparable between the groups. Drainage volumes were numerically lower, and hospital length of stay was, on average, 3 days shorter (p < 0.001) in the mini-VSARR group. At a median follow-up of 5.5 years, there was no difference in mortality (p = 0.230). Survival at 1, 5 and 10 years was 100%, 100%, and 95% and 95%, 87% and 84% in the mini-VSARR and sternotomy-VSARR groups, respectively. No repeat interventions on the aortic valve were documented. Echocardiographic follow-up was complete in 91% with excellent durability of repair regardless of the approach: no cases of moderate/severe aortic regurgitation were reported in the mini-VSARR group. Conclusions: The favorable outcomes, reduced drainage, and shorter hospital stays associated with the mini-sternotomy approach underscore its potential advantages expanding beyond cosmetic outcome.

Bicuspid aortic valve repair-current techniques, outcomes, challenges, and future perspectives

Bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) is a common congenital heart condition that can lead to some valve-related complications, such as aortic stenosis and/or regurgitation, and is often associated with aortic root dilation. With the development and refinement of BAV repair techniques over the past three decades, surgical repair of BAV has emerged as an effective treatment option, offering symptomatic relief and improved outcomes. This review aims to summarize the current techniques, outcomes, and challenges of BAV repair, and to provide potential future perspectives in the field.

Effect of minimally invasive versus conventional aortic root replacement on transfusion and postoperative wound complications in patients: A meta-analysis

We examined whether small incision aortic root replacement could reduce the amount of blood transfusion during operation and the risk of postoperative complications. An extensive e-review of the 4 main databases (PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science and EMBASE) was carried out to determine all the published trials by July 2023. The search terms used were associated with partial versus full sternotomy and aortic root. This analysis only included the study articles that compared partial and full sternotomy. After excluding articles based on titles or abstracts, selected full-text articles had reference lists searched for any potential further articles. We analysed a total of 2167 subjects from 10 comparable trials. The minimally invasive aortic root graft in breastbone decreased the duration of hospitalization (MD, -2.58; 95% CI, -3.15, -2.01, p < 0.0001) and intraoperative red blood cell transfusion (MD, -1.27; 95% CI, -2.34, -0.19, p = 0.02). However, there were no significant differences in wound infection (OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.16, 4.93, p = 0.88), re-exploration for bleeding (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.60, 1.53, p = 0.86), intraoperative blood loss (MD, -259.19; 95% CI, -615.11, 96.73, p = 0.15) and operative time (MD, -7.39; 95% CI, -19.10, 4.32, p = 0.22); the results showed that the microsternotomy did not differ significantly from that of the routine approach. Small sternotomy may be an effective and safe substitute for the treatment of the aorta root. Nevertheless, the wide variety of data indicates that larger, well-designed studies are required to back up the current limited literature evidence showing a benefit in terms of complications like postoperative wound infections or the volume of intraoperative red blood cell transfusion.

Expanding the Minimally Invasive Approach towards the Ascending Aorta-A Practical Overview of the Currently Available Techniques

Minimally invasive techniques have gained immense importance in cardiovascular surgery. While minimal access strategies for coronary and mitral valve surgery are already widely accepted and often used as standard approaches, the application of minimally invasive techniques is currently expanded towards more complex operations of the ascending aorta as well. In this new and developing field, various techniques have been established and reported ranging from upper hemisternotomy approaches, which allow even extensive operations of the ascending aorta to be performed through a minimally invasive access to sternal sparing thoracotomy strategies, which completely avoid sternal trauma during ascending aorta replacements. All of these techniques place high demands on patient selection, preoperative planning, and practical surgical implementation. Application of these strategies is currently limited to high-volume centers and highly experienced surgeons. This narrative review gives an overview of the currently available techniques with a special focus on the practical execution as well as the advantages and disadvantages of the currently available techniques. The first results demonstrate the practicability and safety of minimally invasive techniques for replacement of the ascending aorta in a well-selected patient population. With success and complication rates comparable to classic full sternotomy, the proof of concept for minimally invasive replacement of the ascending aorta is now achieved.

Twenty-five year experience with aortic valve-sparing root replacement in a single teaching center

Objectives

Aortic valve-sparing root replacement (AVSRR) is a technically demanding procedure. In experienced centers it offers excellent short- and long-term results, making the procedure an attractive alternative for aortic root replacement especially in young patients. The aim of this study was to analyze long-term results of AVSRR using the David operation in our institution over the last 25 years.

Methods

This is a single-center retrospective analysis of outcomes of David operations performed in a teaching institution not running a large AVSRR-program. Pre-, intra- and postoperative data were collected from the institutional electronic medical record system. Follow-up data were collected through direct contact of the patients and their cardiologists/primary care physicians.

Results

Between 02/1996 and 11/2019, 131 patients underwent David operation in our institution by a total of 17 different surgeons. Median age was 48 (33–59), 18% were female. Elective surgery was performed in 89% of the cases, 11% were operated as emergency in the setting of an acute aortic dissection. Connective tissue disease was present in 24% and 26% had a bicuspid aortic valve. At hospital admission 61% had aortic regurgitation grade ≥3, 12% were in functional NYHA-class ≥III. 30-day mortality was 2%, 97% of the patients were discharged with aortic regurgitation ≤2. In 10-year follow-up, 15 (12%) patients had to be re-operated because of root-related complications. Seven patients (47%) received a transcatheter aortic valve implantation, 8 (53%) required surgical replacement of the aortic valve or a Bentall-De Bono operation. Estimated reoperation-free survival at 5 and 10 years was 93.5% ± 2.4% and 87.0% ± 3.5%, respectively. Subgroup analysis showed no differences in reoperation-free survival for patients presenting with a bicuspid valve or preoperative aortic regurgitation ≥3. However a preoperative left ventricular end diastolic diameter of ≥5.5 cm was associated with worse outcome.

Conclusion

David operations can be performed with excellent perioperative and 10-year follow-up outcomes in centers not running large AVSRR-programs.