Ministernotomy or sternotomy in isolated aortic valve replacement? Early results

A comparative study of minimally invasive aortic valve replacement with sutureless biological versus mechanical prostheses

Introduction

The ministernotomy approach with sutureless aortic bioprosthesis may provide an attractive and safe option for aortic valve disease patients.

Aim

To assess the early and mid-term outcomes of minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (miniAVR) with sutureless vs. standard prostheses.

Material and methods

The study involved 76 consecutive patients (51 males and 25 females) with mean age of 63.2 years who were treated with miniAVR between 2015 and 2022. They were divided into 2 subgroups: group I (n = 40) subjects with sutureless bioprostheses and group II (n = 36) with standard prostheses implanted. Early and mid-term outcomes were evaluated. A probability of survival was estimated by means of the Kaplan-Meier method.

Results

No conversion to complete sternotomy was necessary. The median (minimum; maximum) aorta cross clamping and cardio-pulmonary bypass times were 49 (27; 84) and 70 (40; 188) minutes in group I whereas 69 (50; 103) and 95 (69; 170) minutes in group II, respectively (p < 0.001). In-hospital mortality was 5.0% (n = 2) and 2.8% (n = 1) in group I vs. II, respectively (ns). Permanent ICD implantation was performed in 8 (20.0%) in group I and in 3 (8.3%) subjects in group II. In the discharge echocardiography, the function of all prostheses was correct. Five-year probability of survival was much lower in group I (0.75 ±0.10) than in group II (0.94 ±0.04). No wound infection or sternum instability was noted.

Conclusions

Intraoperative advantages of miniAVR procedures for aortic valve patients with sutureless bioprostheses do not translate directly into improved early and middle-term outcomes.

Economic Justification Analysis of Minimally Invasive versus Conventional Aortic Valve Replacement

There is no definitive consensus about the cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (AVR) (MI-AVR) compared to conventional AVR (C-AVR). The aim of this study was to compare the rate of postoperative complications and total hospital costs of MI-AVR versus C-AVR overall and by the type of aortic prosthesis (biological or mechanical). Our single-center retrospective study included 324 patients over 18 years old who underwent elective isolated primary AVR with standard stented AV prosthesis at the Institute for Cardiovascular Diseases "Dedinje" between January 2019 and December 2019. Reintervention, emergencies, combined surgical interventions, and patients with sutureless valves were excluded. In both MI-AVR and C-AVR, mechanical valve implantation contributed to overall reduction of hospital costs with equal efficacy. The cost-effectiveness ratio indicated that C-AVR is cheaper and yielded a better clinical outcome with mechanical valve implantation (67.17 vs. 69.5). In biological valve implantation, MI-AVR was superior. MI-AVR patients had statistically significantly higher LVEF and a lower Euro SCORE than C-AVR patients (Mann-Whitney U-test, p = 0.002 and p = 0.002, respectively). There is a slight advantage to MI-AVR vs. C-AVR, since it costs EUR 9.44 more to address complications that may arise. Complications (mortality, early reoperation, cerebrovascular insult, pacemaker implantation, atrial fibrillation, AV block, systemic inflammatory response syndrome, wound infection) were less frequent in the MI-AVR, making MI-AVR more economically justified than C-AVR (18% vs. 22.1%).

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 associated with partial upper sternotomy in obese aortic disease patients

Background

Excellent partial upper sternotomy outcomes have been reported for patients undergoing aortic surgery, but whether this approach is particularly beneficial to obese patients remains to be established. This study was developed to explore the outcomes of aortic surgical procedures conducted via a partial upper sternotomy or a full median sternotomy approach in obese patients.

Methods

We retrospectively examined consecutive acute type A aortic dissection patients who underwent aortic surgery in our hospital between January 2015 to January 2021. Patients were divided into two groups based on body mass index: ‘non-obese’ and ‘obese’. We then further stratified patients in the obese and non-obese groups into partial upper sternotomy and full median sternotomy groups, with outcomes between these two sternotomy groups then being compared within and between these two body mass index groups.

Results

In total, records for 493 patients that had undergone aortic surgery were retrospectively reviewed, leading to the identification of 158 consecutive obese patients and 335 non-obese patients. Overall, 88 and 70 obese patients underwent full median sternotomy and partial upper sternotomy, respectively, while 180 and 155 non-obese patients underwent these respective procedures. There were no differences between the full median sternotomy and partial upper sternotomy groups within either BMI cohort with respect to preoperative baseline indicators and postoperative complications. Among non-obese individuals, the partial upper sternotomy approach was associated with reduced ventilation time (P = 0.003), shorter intensive care unit stay (P = 0.017), shorter duration of hospitalization (P = 0.001), and decreased transfusion requirements (Packed red blood cells: P < 0.001; Fresh frozen plasma: P < 0.001). Comparable findings were also evident among obese patients.

Conclusions

Obese aortic disease patients exhibited beneficial outcomes similar to those achieved for non-obese patients via a partial upper sternotomy approach which was associated with significant reductions in the duration of intensive care unit residency, duration of hospitalization, ventilator use, and transfusion requirements. This surgical approach should thus be offered to aortic disease patients irrespective of their body mass index.

Surgery of ascending aorta with complex procedures for aortic dissection through upper mini-sternotomy versus conventional sternotomy

Background

Use of minimally invasive approaches for isolated aortic valve or ascending aorta surgery is increasing. However, total arch replacement or aortic root repair through a minimally invasive incision is rare. This study was performed to report our initial experience with surgery of the ascending aorta with complex procedures through an upper mini-sternotomy approach.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed 80 patients who underwent ascending aorta replacement combined with complex procedures including hemi-arch, total arch, and aortic root surgeries from September 2010 to May 2018. Using standard propensity score-matching analysis, 36 patients were matched and divided into 2 groups: the upper mini-sternotomy group (n = 18) and the median sternotomy group (n = 18). The preoperative assessment revealed no statistically significant differences between the two groups.

Results

Hospital mortality occurred in one patient (2.8%). The mini-sternotomy group showed a longer cross-clamping time (160 ± 38 vs. 135 ± 36 min, p = 0.048) due to higher rate of valve-sparing aortic root replacement and total arch repair. The cardiopulmonary bypass time in mini-sternotomy group was shorter than that of full sternotomy group (209 ± 47 min vs 218 ± 62 min, p = 0.595) but fell short of significance. There was no significant difference in lower body hypothermia circulatory arrest time between the two groups (40 ± 10 min vs 48 ± 20 min, p = 0.139). The upper mini-sternotomy group displayed a shorter ventilation time (22 vs. 45 h, p = 0.014), intensive care unit stay (4.6 ± 2.7 vs. 7.9 ± 3.7 days, p = 0.005), and hospital stay (8.2 ± 3.8 vs. 21.4 ± 11.9 days, p = 0.001). The upper mini-sternotomy group showed a lower postoperative red blood cell transfusion volume (4.6 ± 3.3 vs. 6.7 ± 5.7 units, p = 0.042) and postoperative drainage volume (764 ± 549 vs. 1255 ± 745 ml, p = 0.034). The rates of dialysis for newly occurring renal failure, neurological complications, and re-exploration were similar between the two groups (p = 1.000).

Conclusion

The upper mini-sternotomy approach is safe and beneficial in ascending aorta surgery with complex procedures for aortic dissection, including total arch replacement and aortic root repair.