Minimal Access Aortic Valve Replacement: Is It Worth It?

Minimal access median sternotomy for aortic valve replacement in elderly patients

BACKGROUND

We report our clinical experience with a approach for aortic valve replacement (AVR) via minimal access skin incision and complete median sternotomy. This approach was used in patients with higher age and multiple co-morbidities, facilitating an easy access with short bypass and cross clamp times. It was especially performed in patients asking for an excellent cosmetic result, who did not qualifying for minimally-invasive AVR via partial upper sternotomy.

METHODS

AVR via minimal-access median sternotomy, was performed in 58 patients between 01/2009 and 11/2011. Intra- and postoperative data including cross clamp time, cardiopulmonary bypass time, mortality, stroke, pacemaker implantation, re-operation for bleeding, ventilation time, ICU and hospital stay, wound infection, sternal dehiscence or fracture and 30 day mortality were collected.

RESULTS

Mean patients age was 76.1 +/-9.4 years, 72% were female. Minimal-access AVR could be performed with a mean length of midline skin incision of 7.8 cm. Aortic cross-clamping time was 54.6 +/-6.3 min, cardiopulmonary bypass time 71.2+/-11.3 min and time of surgery 154.1 +/-26.8 min. Re-operation for bleeding had to be performed in 1 case (1.7%). There were no strokes or pacemaker implantations needed. Mean ventilation time was 4.5 h, ICU stay was 2 days and mean length of hospital stay was 6 days. 6 months follow up showed mortality of 0% and no sternal dehiscence or wound infection was observed.

CONCLUSION

Minimal-access AVR via complete median sternotomy can be performed safely,in this elderly patient cohort without adding additional operative risk compared to conventional AVR. By avoidiance of large skin incisions this approach combines excellent cosmetic results with fast surgery time and excellent postoperative recovery.

Almanac 2012: adult cardiac surgery: the national society journals present selected research that has driven recent advances in clinical cardiology

This review covers the important publications in adult cardiac surgery in the last few years, including the current evidence base for surgical revascularisation and the use of off-pump surgery, bilateral internal mammary arteries and endoscopic vein harvesting. The changes in conventional aortic valve surgery are described alongside the outcomes of clinical trials and registries for transcatheter aortic valve implantation, and the introduction of less invasive and novel approaches of conventional aortic valve replacement surgery. Surgery for mitral valve disease is also considered, with particular reference to surgery for asymptomatic degenerative mitral regurgitation.

Aortic valve replacement via right anterolateral thoracotomy in the case of a patient with extreme mediastinal right-shift following pneumonectomy

We report on the case of a 68-year-old male patient with the history of right pneumonectomy due to bronchial carcinoma, who was referred for aortic valve replacement due to severe calcified aortic stenosis. Pre-operative chest X-ray and computed tomography (CT) revealed an unusually pronounced mediastinal shift to the right. Despite this unusual anatomy, we decided to perform surgery using the right anterolateral thoracotomy following thorough pre-operative planning using 3D-volume rendering of the CT data-set. This approach yielded excellent exposure of the aortic root and the ascending aorta, respectively. Following an uneventful operative and post-operative course the patient could be discharged on post-OP day 6.Although only occasionally described for aortic valve replacement a right anterolateral thoracotomy may represent a valuable surgical approach, particular in patients with unusual anatomy, e.g. a mediastinal right-shift. However, thorough pre-operative planning, i.e. using visualization and planning techniques such as 3D-volume rendering should be mandatory as it provides information crucial to facilitate surgical steps and thus, may help avoid severe surgical complications.

Sutureless Aortic Valve Implantation through an Upper V-Type Ministernotomy: An Innovative Approach in High-Risk Patients

Objective

Aortic valve replacement in minimally invasive approach has shown to improve clinical outcomes even with a prolonged cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic cross-clamp (ACC) time. Sutureless aortic valve implantation may ideally shorten operative time. We describe our initial experience with the sutureless 3f Enable (Medtronic, Inc, ATS Medical, Minneapolis, MN USA) aortic bioprosthesis implanted in minimally invasive approach in high-risk patients.

Methods

Between May 2010 and May 2011, thirteen patients with severe aortic stenosis underwent aortic valve replacement with the 3f Enable bioprosthesis through an upper V-type ministernotomy interrupted at the second intercostal space. The mean ± SD age was 77 ± 3.9 years (range, 72–83 years), 10 patients were women, and the mean ± SD logistic EuroSCORE was 15% ± 13.5%. Echocardiography was performed preoperatively, at postoperative day 1, at discharge, and at follow-up. Clinical data, adverse events, and patient outcomes were recorded retrospectively. The median follow-up time was 4 months (interquartile range, 2–10 months).

Results

Most of the implanted valves were 21 mm in diameter (19–25 mm). The CPB and ACC times were 100.2 ± 25.3 and 66.4 ± 18.6 minutes. At short-term follow-up, the mean ± SD pressure gradient was 14 ± 4.9 mm Hg; one patient showed trivial paravalvular leakage. No patients died during hospital stay or at follow-up.

Conclusions

The 3f Enable sutureless bioprosthesis implanted in minimally invasive approach through an upper V-type ministernotomy is a feasible, safe, and reproducible procedure. Hemodynamic and clinical data are promising. This innovative approach might be considered as an alternative in high-risk patients. Reduction of CPB and ACC time is possible with increasing of experience and sutureless evolution of actual technology.

Outcomes of minimally invasive mitral valve surgery in patients with an ejection fraction of 35% or less

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated the outcomes of minimally invasive mitral valve surgery via a right anterior thoracotomy approach in patients with isolated severe mitral regurgitation and severely reduced left ventricular systolic function.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed all minimally invasive mitral valve surgeries for mitral regurgitation in patients with an ejection fraction of 35% or less performed at our institution between December 2008 and June 2011. The operative times, lengths of stay, postoperative complications, and mortality were analyzed.

RESULTS

We identified a total of 71 patients with severe mitral regurgitation and an ejection fraction of 35% or less who underwent minimally invasive mitral valve surgery. The mean ± SD age was 67 ± 10 years, and 44 of the patients were men (62%). The mean ± SD left ventricular ejection fraction was 27% ± 6%, and 28 patients (39%) had previous heart surgery. The median aortic cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times were 62 [interquartile range (IQR), 50-80) and 98 minutes (IQR, 92-124), respectively. There was no mitral regurgitation noted in any patient on postoperative transesophageal echocardiogram. The median intensive care unit length of stay was 51 hours (IQR, 42-86), and the median postoperative length of stay was 6 days (IQR, 5-9).

CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery for severe functional mitral regurgitation in patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction can be performed with a low morbidity and mortality.

[Transcutaneous aortic valve implantation]

Due to increasing life expectancy in the coming decades the number of elderly patients with aortic valve stenosis (AS) and various concomitant diseases will increase. Conventional surgical aortic valve replacement represents the treatment of choice in patients with severe and symptomatic AS. Transfemoral and transapical aortic valve implantation (T-AVI) has evolved as a standard procedure for patients with severe AS who are technically inoperable or at very high risk for surgical valve replacement. The T-AVI approach has been shown to be superior to the standard medical treatment in these high-risk patients. All patients to be considered for T-AVI should be discussed in a consensus conference consisting of cardiac surgeons and cardiologists (heart team).

Surgery of the ascending aorta, root remodelling and aortic arch surgery with circulatory arrest through partial upper sternotomy: results of 50 consecutive cases

OBJECTIVES

Partial upper sternotomy is a routine approach to aortic valve surgery. For surgery of the ascending aorta or the aortic arch, this method is not well established yet.

METHODS

From October 2007 to October 2010, 50 consecutive patients underwent procedures of the ascending aorta and the aortic arch using partial upper sternotomy. Thirty-six patients underwent replacement or tightening of the ascending aorta, 11 patients received additional replacement of the proximal arch and in 3 cases, a complete replacement of the aortic arch was performed. Thirty-nine patients underwent additional aortic valve surgery.

RESULTS

Mean operation time was 249 ± 51 min. Mean aortic cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass time were 95 ± 27 and 141 ± 35 min, respectively. No conversion to conventional sternotomy was performed. All valves appeared competent on postoperative echocardiography. Survival was 100%. One re-exploration for bleeding was necessary. One stroke (2%) occurred, one pacemaker was implanted due to third-degree AV block and 16 patients (32%) experienced atrial fibrillation. One patient suffered from sternal wound infection. One patient needed reoperation due to severe aortic insufficiency on postoperative day 13. Median postoperative ventilation time was 13 h, median intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital stay were 22 h and 7 days, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Results show that minimally invasive surgical procedures of the ascending aorta and the aortic arch may be performed safely, with an excellent clinical outcomes and superior cosmesis. Short ICU and hospital stay indicate the beneficial effects of reduced surgical trauma for patient recovery.

Anterolateral minithoracotomy versus median sternotomy for the treatment of congenital heart defects: a meta-analysis and systematic review

Background

Anterolateral Minithoracotomy (ALMT) for the radical correction of Congenital Heart Defects is an alternative to Median Sternotomy (MS) due to reduce operative trauma accelerating recovery and yield a better cosmetic outcome after surgery. Our purpose is to conduct whether ALMT would bring more short-term benefits to patients than conventional Median Sternotomy by using a meta-analysis of case–control study in the published English Journal.

Methods

6 case control studies published in English from 1997 to 2011 were identified and synthesized to compare the short-term postoperative outcomes between ALMT and MS. These outcomes were cardiopulmonary bypass time, aortic cross-clamp time, intubation time, intensive care unit stay time, and postoperative hospital stay time.

Results

ALMT had significantly longer cardiopulmonary bypass times (8.00 min more, 95% CI 0.36 to 15.64 min, p = 0.04). Some evidence proved that aortic cross-clamp time of ALMT was longer, yet not significantly (2.38 min more, 95% CI −0.15 to 4.91 min, p = 0.06). In addition, ALMT had significantly shorter intubation time (1.66 hrs less, 95% CI −3.05 to −0.27 hrs, p = 0.02). Postoperative hospital stay time was significantly shorter with ALMT (1.52 days less, 95% CI −2.71 to −0.33 days, p = 0.01). Some evidence suggested a reduction in ICU stay time in the ALMT group. However, this did not prove to be statistically significant (0.88 days less, 95% CI −0.81 to 0.04 days, p = 0.08).

Conclusion

ALMT can bring more benefits to patients with Congenital Heart Defects by reducing intubation time and postoperative hospital stay time, though ALMT has longer CPB time and aortic cross-clamp time.

J-shaped versus median sternotomy for aortic valve replacement with minimal extracorporeal circuit

OBJECTIVES

Minimal access aortic valve replacement (AVR) has been demonstrated to have beneficial effects over median sternotomy. Minimal extracorporeal circulation (MECC) has been shown to have less deleterious effects than conventional cardiopulmonary bypass. We describe for the first time AVR via upper J-shaped partial sternotomy compared to median sternotomy using MECC.

METHODS

Prospectively collected pre-operative, intra-operative, post-operative and follow-up data from 104 consecutive patients who underwent minimal access AVR were compared to 72 consecutive patients undergoing median sternotomy using MECC during the same period (January 2007 to December 2009).

RESULTS

No significant differences were found in patient's characteristics or intra-operative data with the exception of pre-existing pulmonary disease. The mean cardiopulmonary bypass (86 ± 18 min vs. 78 ± 15 min, p = 0.0079) and cross-clamp times (65 ± 13 min vs. 59 ± 12 min, p = 0.0013) were significantly shorter in the median sternotomy group. Mediastinal blood loss (397 ± 257 ml vs. 614 ± 339 ml, p < 0.0001) and ventilation time (8 ± 6.9 h vs. 11 ± 16.5 h, p = 0.0054) were significantly less in the minimal access group. No differences were seen in transfusion requirements, inotropic support, intensive care unit (ICU) stay, total hospital stay, post-operative haemoglobin drop, major events or mortality. Quality of life scores after discharge demonstrated less pain with a quicker recovery and return to daily activities in patients receiving J-shaped sternotomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Minimal access AVR using MECC is feasible and provides excellent clinical results. Less pain and quicker recovery was experienced among patients in this group.

Outcomes of a minimally invasive approach compared with median sternotomy for the excision of benign cardiac masses

BACKGROUND

We hypothesize that for the excision of benign cardiac masses, a minimally invasive approach through a right minithoracotomy is safe and feasible, and has lower resource utilization when compared with a standard median sternotomy.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 39 consecutive patients who underwent benign cardiac mass excision at our institution between December 1999 and April 2010. The in-hospital outcomes of patients who had a right minithoracotomy were compared with those of patients who underwent a standard median sternotomy.

RESULTS

Of the 39 patients, 22 had cardiac masses removed through a minimally invasive approach, and 17 had a median sternotomy. The type of masses resected included 26 myxomas (66.7%), 9 papillary fibroelastomas (23.1%), and 4 thrombi (10.2%). The aortic cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times were 43 minutes (interquartile range [IQR] 30 to 64) versus 31 minutes (IQR 23 to 47; p=0.20) and 78 minutes (IQR 55 to 88) versus 57 minutes (IQR 33 to 70; p=0.02) for the minimally invasive group and the median sternotomy group, respectively. There were no significant differences in postoperative complications including mortality. The mean intensive care unit and hospital lengths of stay were 27 hours (IQR 24 to 47) versus 60 hours (IQR 48 to 79; p=0.001) and 5 days (IQR 4 to 6) versus 7 days (IQR 6 to 8; p=0.03) for the minimally invasive and the median sternotomy group, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

A minimally invasive approach through a right minithoracotomy for the resection of benign cardiac masses can be performed safely with lower resource utilization, and should be considered for these patients.

Outcomes of minimally invasive valve surgery versus median sternotomy in patients age 75 years or greater

BACKGROUND

Advanced age is a major predictor of poor outcome in patients undergoing valve surgery. We hypothesized that elderly patients who underwent minimally invasive valve surgery for aortic or mitral valve disease would do better when compared with those undergoing the standard median sternotomy.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 2,107 consecutive heart operations at our institution and identified 203 patients, age 75 years or greater, who underwent isolated mitral or aortic valve surgery. Outcomes of those who had minimally invasive valve surgery through a right minithoracotomy were compared with those who had a median sternotomy.

RESULTS

Of the 203 patients, 119 (59%) underwent a minimally invasive approach, while 84 (41%) had a median sternotomy. The median postoperative length of stay was 7 days (interquartile range [IQR] 6 to 10) versus 12 days (IQR 9 to 20), p less than 0.001, and intensive care unit length of stay was 52 hours (IQR 44 to 93) versus 119 hours (IQR 57 to 193), p less than 0.001 for minimally invasive and median sternotomy, respectively. In-hospital mortality was 2 (1.7%) versus 8 (9.5%, p=0.01 and composite postoperative morbidity and mortality occurred in 25 (21%) versus 38 (45.2%), p less than 0.001, in minimally invasive versus median sternotomy, respectively. The difference was driven by the following: a lower incidence of acute renal failure, 1 (0.8%) versus 14 (16.7%), p<0.001; prolonged intubation 23 (19.3%) versus 32 (38.1%), p=0.003; wound infections 1 (0.8%) versus 5 (6%), p=0.034; and death.

CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive surgery for isolated valve lesions in elderly patients yields a lower morbidity and mortality when compared with median sternotomy and should be considered when such individuals require valve surgery.

Mini-sternotomy for aortic valve replacement reduces the length of stay in the cardiac intensive care unit: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Background Mini-sternotomy for isolated aortic valve replacement aims to reduce operative trauma hastening recovery and improving the cosmetic outcome of cardiac surgery. The short-term clinical benefits from the mini-sternotomy are presumed to arise because the incision is less extensive and the lower half of the chest cage remains intact. The basic conduct of virtually all other aspects of the aortic valve replacement procedure remains the same. Therefore, similar long-term outcomes are to be expected. Objectives To conduct a meta-analysis of the only available randomised controlled trials (RCT) in the published English literature. Data sources Electronic search for relevant publications in MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL databases were performed. Four studies met the criteria. Study eligibility criteria RCT comparing minimally invasive (inverted C or L (J)-shaped) hemi-sternotomy versus conventional sternotomy for adults undergoing isolated aortic valve replacement using standard cardiopulmonary bypass technique. Methods Outcome measures were the length of positive pressure ventilation, blood loss, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital stay. Results The length of ICU stay was significantly shorter by 0.57 days in favour of the mini-sternotomy group (CI -0.95 to -0.2; p=0.003). There was no advantage in terms of duration of ventilation (CI -3.48 to 0.36; p=0.11). However, there was some evidence to suggest a reduction in blood loss and the length of stay in hospital in the mini-sternotomy group. This did not prove to be statistically significant (154.17 ml reduction (CI -324.51 to 16.17; p=0.08) and 2.03 days less (CI -4.12 to 0.05; p=0.06), respectively). Limitations This study includes a relatively small number of subjects (n=220) and outcome variables. The risk of bias was not assessed during this meta-analysis. Conclusion Mini-sternotomy for isolated aortic valve replacement significantly reduces the length of stay in the cardiac ICU. Other short-term benefits may include a reduction in blood loss or the length of hospital stay.

Assisted venous drainage on cardiopulmonary bypass for minimally invasive aortic valve replacement: is it necessary, useful or desirable?

Assisted venous drainage (AVD) is considered an essential component of the cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) circuit for minimal access aortic valve replacement (mAVR). The rationale/necessity for AVD in every patient has not been fully elucidated. Data from consecutive patients undergoing isolated first-time mAVR by a single surgeon from March 2006 to October 2008 was prospectively collected. All cases were cannulated centrally. Venous drainage was by a three-stage cannula (Medtronic MC2X) via the right atrial appendage. AVD was utilised intraoperatively at the discretion of the perfusionist and/or surgeon to maintain the required flow rate. Pre- and perioperative data were compared between the two groups. Fifty-seven patients underwent mAVR. Twenty-nine did not require assistance (AVD-), 28 did (AVD+). There were no significant differences between the two groups' age, sex distribution, body mass index and risk stratification data. Patients who required AVD had significantly higher body surface areas (BSAs) [1.93 m(2) (1.56-2.46) vs. 1.79 m(2) (1.41-2.26), P=0.03] and consequent higher CPB flow required [4.62 l/min (3.74-5.90) vs. 4.29 l/min (3.38-5.42), P=0.03]. Patients who required AVD tended to have longer ischaemic times [79.5 min (48-135) vs. 69 min (47-126), P=0.06]. AVD during mAVR is not necessary in every patient. We found it to be necessary in patients with higher BSA (consequently requiring a higher flow rate on CPB).

Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The mitral valve has been traditionally approached through a median sternotomy. However, significant advances in surgical optics, instrumentation, tissue telemanipulation, and perfusion technology have allowed for mitral valve surgery to be performed using progressively smaller incisions including the minithoracotomy and hemisternotomy. Due to reports of excellent results, minimally invasive mitral valve surgery has become a standard of care at certain specialized centers worldwide. This meta-analysis quantifies the effects of minimally invasive mitral valve surgery on morbidity and mortality compared with conventional mitral surgery and demonstrates equivalent perioperative mortality (1641 patients, odds ratio (OR) 0.46, 95% confidence interval 0.15-1.42, p=0.18), reduced need for reoperation for bleeding (1553 patients, OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.35-0.90, p=0.02) and a trend towards shorter hospital stays (350 patients, weighted mean difference (WMD) -0.73, 95% CI -1.52 to 0.05, p=0.07). These benefits were evident despite longer cardiopulmonary bypass (WMD 25.81, 95% CI 13.13-38.50, p<0.0001) and cross-clamp times (WMD 20.91, 95% CI 8.79-33.04, p=0.0007) in the minimally invasive group. Case-control studies show consistently less pain and faster recovery compared to those having a conventional approach. Data for minimally invasive mitral valve surgery after previous cardiac surgery are limited but consistently demonstrate reduced blood loss, fewer transfusions and faster recovery compared to reoperative sternotomy. Long-term follow-up data from multiple cohort studies are also examined revealing equivalent survival and freedom from reoperation. Thus, current clinical data suggest that minimally invasive mitral valve surgery is a safe and a durable alternative to a conventional approach and is associated with less morbidity.