Minimal Access Aortic Valve Replacement: Is It Worth It?

Optimizing Aortic Valve Reoperations: Ministernotomy vs. Full Sternotomy

Background: The minimally invasive approach, performed via ministernotomy, is now often preferred for isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR). However, its benefits in patients with prior cardiac surgery remain unclear. This article compares traditional and minimally invasive surgery for isolated aortic valve replacement in reoperative cases. Methods: A retrospective analysis of 382 patients who underwent reoperative AVR between January 2010 and June 2024 divided them into two groups: 309 patients (80.1%) had a traditional full sternotomy, while 73 patients (19.1%) had minimally invasive AVR via upper ministernotomy. Results: Significant differences were noted between the groups. The full sternotomy group had a higher logistic EuroSCORE (SMD = 0.203), more patients with active endocarditis (SMD = 0.312), and a higher pacemaker rate. To minimize bias, inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used. The minimally invasive group had shorter aortic cross-clamp (50 vs. 65 min, p < 0.001) and cardiopulmonary bypass times (62 vs. 85 min, p < 0.001), shorter intensive care unit (ICU) stays (p < 0.001), lower rates of acute renal failure (p = 0.001), and less blood loss (p < 0.001), but similar transfusion needs. Early mortality was higher in the full sternotomy group (4.5% vs. 1.6%, p = 0.025). Conclusions: Minimally invasive aortic valve reoperation via upper "J" sternotomy is as safe as full sternotomy. Patients experienced lower rates of acute renal failure and less postoperative bleeding, contributing to a safer recovery with decreased hospital mortality.

Contemporary Management of the Aortic Valve-Narrative Review of an Evolving Landscape

Background: Aortic valve replacement has undergone novel changes in recent decades, providing not only a multitude of procedural options but expanding the treatable patient population. Specifically, a number of minimally invasive and interventional treatment options have allowed for the treatment of high and prohibitive risk surgical patients. Further, technology is allowing for the development of innovative surgical and transcatheter valve models, which will advance the treatment of aortic valve disease in the future. Objective: Here, we choose to describe the modern aortic valve replacement techniques and the available valves and designs.

First Report on Rigid Plate Fixation for Enhanced Sternal Closure in Minimally Invasive Cardiac Surgery: Safety and Outcomes

INTRODUCTION

This study reports of the use of a rigid-plate fixation (RPF) system designed for sternal closure after minimally invasive cardiac surgery (MICS).

METHODS

This retrospective analysis included all patients undergoing MICS with RPF (Zimmer Biomet, Jacksonville, FL, USA) at our institution. We analyzed in-hospital complications, as well as sternal complications and sternal pain at discharge and at follow-up 7 to 14 months after surgery.

RESULTS

Between June and December 2023, 12 patients underwent RPF during MICS, of which 9 patients were included in the study. The median (IQR) age was 64 years (63 to 71) and two patients (22%) were female. All patients underwent aortic valve replacement, with two patients (22%) undergoing concomitant aortic surgery. RPF was successfully performed in all patients. ICU and in-hospital stay were 1 day (1 to 1) and 9 days (7 to 13), respectively. Patients were first mobilized in the standing position on postoperative day 2 (2 to 2). Four patients (44%) required opiates on the general ward. In-hospital mortality was 0%. At discharge, rates of sternal pain, sternal instability or infection were 0%. After a follow-up time of 343.6 days (217 to 433), median pain intensity using the Visual Analog Scale was 0 (0 to 2). Forty-four percent (n = 4) of patients reported pain at rest. No sternal complications (sternal dehiscence, sternal mal-union, sternal instability, superficial wound infections and deep sternal wound infections) were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

In the evolving landscape of cardiac therapies with incentives to reduce surgical burden, RPF showed safety and feasibility. It might become an important tool for sternal closure in minimally invasive cardiac surgery.

Comparison of the Outcomes of Aortic Valve Replacements (AVRs) Performed via Conventional Full Sternotomy and Upper Mini Sternotomy: Our Experience at Hayatabad Medical Complex, Pakistan

Introduction Aortic valve replacement (AVR) for severe symptomatic aortic stenosis is a commonly performed procedure, yielding excellent long-term outcomes. Comparing a mini sternotomy with a conventional sternotomy is essential to evaluate less invasive options that can improve patient recovery and reduce postoperative complications. This insight supports surgical decision-making for better AVR patient outcomes. Methodology This retrospective comparative study aims to compare clinical outcomes between mini sternotomy for aortic valve replacement (mini-AVR) and conventional full sternotomy for aortic valve replacement (FS-AVR). Patient records of isolated AVR from January 2021 to July 2023 were reviewed, excluding those with comorbidities or requiring concomitant procedures. Outcomes measured included sternal wound infections, operative time, length of ICU stay, cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time, and aortic cross-clamp time. Results The study included 65 patients (47 males and 18 females). Among the participants, 30 patients underwent AVR using full sternotomy, while 35 patients had the procedure performed via upper mini-sternotomy. The mini-AVR group experienced significantly less bleeding and a reduced need for blood transfusions compared to the FS-AVR group. Additionally, patients in the FS-AVR group had longer ICU stays and prolonged ventilation times. Notably, in contrast to findings from other studies, our research revealed that CPB time and aortic cross-clamp time were shorter in the mini-AVR group. Conclusion Mini-sternotomy has proven to be a safe and effective approach for AVR, with the mini-AVR group experiencing fewer complications, such as reduced bleeding and decreased need for blood transfusions. Additionally, patients benefit from shorter ICU stays, reduced ventilation time, and quicker overall recovery.

Minimally Invasive Aortic Valve Replacement for High-Risk Populations: Transaxillary Access Enhances Survival in Patients with Obesity

Background/Objectives: Minimally invasive cardiac surgery is often avoided in patients with obesity due to exposure and surgical access concerns. Nonetheless, these patients have elevated periprocedural risks. Minimally invasive transaxillary aortic valve surgery offers a sternum-sparing "nearly no visible scar" alternative to the traditional full sternotomy. This study evaluated the clinical outcomes of patients with obesity compared to a propensity score-matched full sternotomy cohort. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included 1086 patients with obesity (body mass index [BMI] of >30 kg/m2) undergoing isolated aortic valve replacement from 2014 to 2023. Two hundred consecutive patients who received transaxillary minimally invasive cardiac lateral surgery (MICLAT-S) served as a treatment group, while a control group was generated via 1:1 propensity score matching from 886 patients who underwent full sternotomy. The final sample comprised 400 patients in both groups. Outcomes included major adverse cardio-cerebral events, mortality, and postoperative complications. Results: After matching, the clinical baselines were comparable. The mean BMI was 34.4 ± 4.0 kg/m2 (median: 33.9, range: 31.0-64.0). Despite the significantly longer skin-to-skin time (135.0 ± 37.7 vs. 119.0 ± 33.8 min; p ≤ 0.001), cardiopulmonary bypass time (69.1 ± 19.1 vs. 56.1 ± 21.4 min; p ≤ 0.001), and aortic cross-clamp time (44.0 ± 13.4 vs. 41.9 ± 13.3 min; p = 0.044), the MICLAT-S group showed a shorter hospital stay (9.71 ± 6.19 vs. 12.4 ± 7.13 days; p ≤ 0.001), lower transfusion requirements (0.54 ± 1.67 vs. 5.17 ± 9.38 units; p ≤ 0.001), reduced postoperative wound healing issues (5.0% vs. 12.0%; p = 0.012), and a lower 30-day mortality rate (1.5% vs. 6.0%; p = 0.031). Conclusions: MICLAT-S is safe and effective. Compared to traditional sternotomy in patients with obesity, MICLAT-S improves survival, reduces postoperative morbidity, and shortens hospital stays.

Right anterior thoracotomy vs. upper hemisternotomy for aortic valve replacement with Perceval S: is there a difference?

Background

Our study aimed to evaluate the early outcomes of aortic valve replacement with Perceval S sutureless valve through the right anterior thoracotomy and upper hemisternotomy approaches, and to determine if there are any differences between these two approaches.

Methods

We carried out a study using data from 174 patients who underwent minimally invasive Perceval S valve implantation for aortic valve stenosis between January 2018 and August 2023. This was a retrospective, single-center observational study. The patients were divided into two groups: the hemisternotomy group (n = 100) and the right anterior thoracotomy group (n = 74).

Results

The overall in-hospital mortality was 1,7%. The cardiopulmonary bypass and cross-clamp times were longer in the right anterior thoracotomy group (p < .001). There were no statistically significant differences in terms of stroke, paravalvular leak, mechanical ventilation time, blood transfusion requirements, pacemaker implantation, reexploration for bleeding, conversion, wound infection, or in-hospital stay. Postoperative chest drainage was lower (p < .001) and postoperative atrial fibrillation occurred less frequently (p = .044) in the right anterior thoracotomy group. The median intensive care unit stay was shorter in the right anterior thoracotomy group (p = .018).

Conclusion

Aortic valve replacement with the Perceval S valve through either an upper hemisternotomy or a right anterior thoracotomy is a procedure associated with low perioperative complication rates. Right anterior thoracotomy for an aortic valve replacement with the Perceval S valve was associated with lower postoperative bleeding, a lower postoperative atrial fibrillation incidence and a shorter intensive care unit stay compared to upper hemistornotomy.

Aortic valve replacement through right anterior mini-thoracotomy in patients with chronic severe aortic regurgitation: a retrospective single-center study

BACKGROUND

Aortic valve replacement (AVR) has recently been performed at many centers using a minimally invasive approach to reduce postoperative mortality, morbidity, and pain. Most previous reports on minimally invasive AVR (MiAVR) have mainly focused on aortic stenosis, and those exclusively dealing with aortic regurgitation (AR) are few. The purpose of this study was to investigate early surgical results and review our experience with patients with chronic severe AR who underwent AVR via right anterior mini-thoracotomy (RAT).

METHODS

Data were retrospectively collected in this single-center study. Eight patients who underwent RAT AVR between January 2020 and January 2024 were enrolled. Short-term outcomes, including the length of hospital stay, in-hospital mortality, postoperative complications, and echocardiographic data, were analyzed.

RESULTS

No in-hospital mortalities were observed. Postoperative atrial fibrillation occurred temporarily in three patients (37.5%). However, none required permanent pacemaker implantation or renal replacement therapy. The median values of ventilator time, length of intensive care unit stay, and hospital stay were 17 hours, 34.5 hours, and 9 days, respectively. Preoperative and postoperative measurements of left ventricular ejection fraction were similar. However, the left ventricular end systolic and diastolic diameters significantly decreased postoperatively from 42 mm to 35.5 mm (p=0.018) and 63 mm to 51 mm (p=0.012), respectively.

CONCLUSION

MiAVR via RAT is a safe and reproducible procedure with acceptable morbidity and complication rates in patients with chronic severe AR. Despite some limitations such as a narrow surgical field and demanding learning curve, MiAVR is a competent method for AR.

Impact of Pleural Integrity Preservation After Minimally Invasive Aortic Valve Surgery

OBJECTIVE

While the benefits of minimally invasive aortic valve surgery compared with standard sternotomy have been widely described, the impact of preservation of pleural integrity (PPI) in minimally invasive surgery is still widely discussed. This study aims to define the role of PPI on postoperative and long-term outcomes after minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MIAVR).

METHODS

All 2,430 consecutive patients undergoing MIAVR (ministernotomy or right anterior minithoracotomy) between 1997 and 2022 were included in the study. Patients were divided into 2 groups: patients with and without PPI. PPI was considered the maintenance of the pleura closed without the need for a chest tube insertion at the end of the surgical procedure. A propensity-matched analysis was used to compare the PPI and not-PPI groups.

RESULTS

After propensity matching, 848 patients were included in each group (PPI and not-PPI). The mean age was 70.21 versus 71.42 years, and the mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality was 0.31% versus 0.30% in not-PPI versus PPI, respectively. The mean follow-up time was 147.4 months. Postoperatively, not-PPI versus PPI patients had a longer intensive care unit stay (9.7 vs 17.3 h, P < 0.001) and hospital length of stay (5.2 vs 8.9 days, P < 0.001). The rate of respiratory complications including the incidence of pneumothorax or subcutaneous emphysema, pulmonary atelectasis, and pleural effusion events requiring thoracentesis/drainage was significantly higher in not-PPI versus PPI. The 30-day all-cause mortality was higher in not-PPI versus PPI (0.029 vs 0.010, P = 0.003). Perioperative, short-term, and long-term all-cause mortality was significantly higher in the not-PPI group.

CONCLUSIONS

PPI after MIAVR is associated with reduced incidence of postoperative complications, reduced lengths of stay, and improved overall survival compared with not-PPI. Therefore, a MIAVR tailored patient-procedure approach to maintaining the pleura integrity positively impacts short-term and long-term outcomes.

Minimally invasive, surgical, and transcatheter aortic valve replacement: A network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has evolved as an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). In addition to full-sternotomy (FS), recent reports have shown successful minimally-invasive SAVR approaches, including mini-sternotomy (MS) and mini-thoracotomy (MT). This network-meta-analysis (NMA) seeks to provide an outcomes comparison based on these different modalities (MS, MT, TAVR) compared with FS as a reference arm for the management of aortic valve disease.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was performed to identify studies that compared minimally-invasive SAVR (MS/MT) to conventional FS-SAVR, and/or TAVR. Bayesian NMA was performed using the random effects model. Outcomes were pooled as risk ratios (RR) with their 95 % confidence intervals (CIs). Our primary outcomes included 30-day mortality, stroke, acute kidney injury (AKI), major bleeding, new permanent pacemaker (PPM), and paravalvular leak (PVL). We also assessed long-term mortality at the latest follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 27,117 patients (56 studies) were included; 10,397 patients had FS SAVR, 9523 had MS, 5487 had MT, and 1710 had TAVR. Compared to FS, MS was associated with statistically-significantly lower rates of 30-day mortality (RR, 0.76, 95%CI 0.59-0.98), stroke (RR, 0.84, 95%CI 0.72-0.97), AKI (RR, 0.76, 95%CI 0.61-0.94), and long-term mortality (RR 0.84, 95%CI 0.72-0.97) at a weighted mean follow-up duration of 10.4 years, while MT showed statistically-significantly higher rates of 30-day PVL (RR, 3.76, 95%CI 1.31-10.85) and major bleeding (RR 1.45; 95%CI 1.08-1.94). TAVR had statistically significant lower rates of 30-day AKI (RR 0.49, 95%CI 0.31-0.77), but showed statistically-significantly higher PPM (RR 2.50; 95%CI 1.60-3.91) and 30-day PVL (RR 12.85, 95%CI 5.05-32.68) compared to FS.

CONCLUSIONS

MS was protective against 30-day mortality, stroke, AKI, and long-term mortality compared to FS; TAVR showed higher rates of 30-day PVL and PPM but was protective against AKI. Conversely, MT showed higher rates of 30-day PVL and major bleeding. With the emergence of TAVR, the appropriate benchmarks for SAVR comparison in future trials should be the minimally-invasive SAVR approaches to provide clinical equipoise.

Minimally Invasive versus Conventional Aortic Root Surgery: Results of an Intermediate-Volume Center

BACKGROUND

 We evaluate the outcome of aortic root surgery via an upper J: -shaped mini-sternotomy (MS) versus full sternotomy (FS) in an intermediate-volume center.

METHODS

 Between November 2011 and February 2019, 94 consecutive patients underwent aortic root surgery: 62 (66%) patients were operated via a J: -shaped MS (group A) and 32 (34%) patients via FS (group B). The primary endpoints were mortality, major adverse cardiac and cerebral events (MACCE), and reoperation in a 2-year follow-up. The secondary endpoints were perioperative complications and patient's satisfaction with the procedural results.

RESULTS

 Valve sparing root replacement (David procedure) was performed in 13 (21%) of the MS and 7 (22%) of the FS patients. The Bentall procedure in MS versus FS was 49 (79%) versus 25 (78%), respectively. Both groups presented similar mean operation, cardiopulmonary bypass, and cross-clamp times. Postoperative bleeding was 534 ± 300 and 755 ± 402 mL (p = 0.01) in MS and FS, respectively, erythrocyte concentrate substitution was 3 ± 3 and 5.3 ± 4.8 (p = 0.018) in MS and FS, respectively, and pneumonia rates were 0 and 9.4% (p = 0.03) in MS and FS, respectively. The 30-day mortality was 0% in both groups, whereas MACCE was 1.6 and 3% (p = 0.45) in MS and FS, respectively. After 2 years, the mortality and MACCE were 4.6 and 9.5% (p = 0.11) and 4.6 and 0% (p = 0.66) in MS and FS, respectively. The number of patients who were satisfied with the surgical cosmetic results in groups A and B was 53 (85.4%) and 26 (81%), respectively.

CONCLUSION

 Aortic root surgery via MS is a safe alternative to FS even in an intermediate-volume center. It offers a shorter recovery time and similar midterm results.

Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Aortic Valve Replacement in Obese Patients: A Propensity-Matched Study

INTRODUCTION

Obese patients are at risk of complications after cardiac surgery. The aim of this study is to investigate safety and efficacy of a minimally invasive approach via upper sternotomy in this setting.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 203 obese patients who underwent isolated, elective aortic valve replacement between January 2014 and January 2023 - 106 with minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MIAVR) and 97 with conventional aortic valve replacement (CAVR). To account for baseline differences, a propensity-matching analysis was performed obtaining two balanced groups of 91 patients each.

RESULTS

The 30-day mortality rate was comparable between groups (1.1% MIAVR vs. 0% CAVR, P=0.99). MIAVR patients had faster extubation than CAVR patients (6 ± 2 vs. 9 ± 2 hours, P<0.01). Continuous positive airway pressure therapy was less common in the MIAVR than in the CAVR group (3.3% vs. 13.2%, P=0.03). Other postoperative complications did not differ significantly. Intensive care unit stay (1.8 ± 1.2 vs. 3.2 ± 1.4 days, P<0.01), but not hospital stay (6.7 ± 2.1 vs. 7.2 ± 1.9 days, P=0.09), was shorter for MIAVR than for CAVR patients. Follow-up survival was comparable (logrank P-value = 0.58).

CONCLUSION

MIAVR via upper sternotomy has been shown to be a safe and effective option for obese patients. Respiratory outcome was promising with shorter mechanical ventilation time and reduced need for post-extubation support. The length of stay in the intensive care unit was reduced. These advantages might be important for the obese patient to whom minimally invasive surgery should not be denied.

Effect of right anterolateral thoracotomy versus median sternotomy on postoperative wound tissue repair in patients with congenital heart disease: A meta-analysis

Right anterolateral thoracotomy (RAT) and median sternotomy (MS) are two major methods for treatment of congenital cardiac disease. But there are various types of surgery that provide a better operative outcome for the patient. Therefore, we carried out a meta-analysis to investigate the effects of these two methods in the treatment of wound tissue, hospitalization and so on, to find out which surgery method could provide the best short-term effect. In this research, we chose an English controlled trial from 2003 to 2022 to evaluate the influence of right anterolateral thoracotomy and median sternotomy on the short-term outcome of Cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB), time of operation, time spent in the hospital, and the time of scar formation. Our findings suggest that the RAT method was associated with a shorter surgical scars for congenital heart disease operations compared to MS with respect to post-operation scars (WMD, 3.55; 95% CI, 0.04, 7.05; p = 0.05). The RAT method is better suited to the needs of patients who care about their injuries. Nevertheless, in addition to other surgery related factors which might affect post-operative wound healing, we discovered that MS took a shorter time to perform CPB compared with RAT surgery (WMD, - 1.94; 95% CI, -3.39, -0.48; p = 0.009). Likewise, when it comes to the time taken to perform surgery, MS needs less operational time compared to RAT methods (WMD, -12.84; 95% CI, -25.27, -0.42; p = 0.04). On the other hand, the time needed for MS to recover was much longer compared to the RAT (WMD, 0. 60; 95% CI, 0.02, 1.18; p = 0.04). This indicates that while RAT is advantageous in terms of shortening the duration of post-operative scar, it also increases the time needed for surgical operations and CPB.

The Northern New England Rapid Deployment Valve Experience: Survival and Procedural Outcomes From 2015 to 2021

OBJECTIVE

The optimal approach and choice of initial aortic valve replacement (AVR) is evolving in the growing era of transcatheter AVR. Further survival and hemodynamic data are needed to compare the emerging role of rapid deployment (rdAVR) versus stented (sAVR) valve options for AVR.

METHODS

The Northern New England Cardiovascular Database was queried for patients undergoing either isolated AVR or AVR + coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) with rdAVR or sAVR aortic valves between 2015 and 2021. Exclusion criteria included endocarditis, mechanical valves, dissection, emergency case status, and prior sternotomy. This resulted in a cohort including 1,616 sAVR and 538 rdAVR cases. After propensity weighting, procedural characteristics, hemodynamic variables, and survival outcomes were examined.

RESULTS

The breakdown of the overall cohort (2,154) included 1,164 isolated AVR (222 rdAVR, 942 sAVR) and 990 AVR + CABG (316 rdAVR, 674 sAVR). After inverse propensity weighting, cohorts were well matched, notable only for more patients <50 years in the sAVR group (4.0% vs 1.9%, standardized mean difference [SMD] = -0.12). Cross-clamp (89 vs 64 min, SMD = -0.71) and cardiopulmonary bypass (121 vs 91 min, SMD = -0.68) times were considerably longer for sAVR versus rdAVR. Immediate postreplacement aortic gradient decreased with larger valve size but did not differ significantly between comparable sAVR and rdAVR valve sizes or overall (6.5 vs 6.7 mm Hg, SMD = 0.09). Implanted rdAVR tended to be larger with 51% either size L or XL versus 37.4% of sAVR ≥25 mm. Despite a temporal decrease in pacemaker rate within the rdAVR cohort, the overall pacemaker frequency was less in sAVR versus rdAVR (4.4% vs 7.4%, SMD = 0.12), and significantly higher rates were seen in size L (10.3% vs 3.7%, P < 0.002) and XL (15% vs 5.6%, P < 0.004) rdAVR versus sAVR. No significant difference in major adverse cardiac events (4.6% vs 4.6%, SMD = 0.01), 30-day survival (1.5% vs 2.6%, SMD = 0.08), or long-term survival out to 4 years were seen between sAVR and rdAVR.

CONCLUSIONS

Rapid deployment valves offer a safe alternative to sAVR with significantly decreased cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times. Despite larger implantation sizes, we did not appreciate a comparative difference in immediate postoperative gradients, and although pacemaker rates are improving, they remain higher in rdAVR compared with sAVR. Longer-term hemodynamic and survival follow-up are needed.

Limited versus full sternotomy for aortic valve replacement

BACKGROUND

Aortic valve disease is a common condition easily treatable with cardiac surgery. This is conventionally performed by opening the sternum ('median sternotomy') and replacing the valve under cardiopulmonary bypass. Median sternotomy is well tolerated, but as less invasive options become available, the efficacy of limited incisions has been called into question. In particular, the effects of reducing the visibility and surgical access have raised safety concerns with regard 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. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2017, with seven new studies.

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 and Embase from inception to August 2021, with no language limitations. We also searched two clinical trials registries and manufacturers' websites. We reviewed references of primary studies to identify any further studies of relevance.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included 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, transapical, transfemoral 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. We determined the certainty of evidence using the GRADE methodology and summarised results of patient-relevant outcomes in a summary of findings table.

MAIN RESULTS

The review included 14 trials with 1395 participants. Most studies had at least two domains at high risk of bias. We analysed 14 outcomes investigating the effects of minimally invasive limited upper hemi-sternotomy on aortic valve replacement as compared to surgery performed via full median sternotomy. Upper hemi-sternotomy may have little to no effect on mortality versus full median sternotomy (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 1.94; 10 studies, 985 participants; low-certainty evidence). Upper hemi-sternotomy for aortic valve replacement may increase cardiopulmonary bypass time slightly, although the evidence is very uncertain (mean difference (MD) 10.63 minutes, 95% CI 3.39 to 17.88; 10 studies, 1043 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and may increase aortic cross-clamp time slightly (MD 6.07 minutes, 95% CI 0.79 to 11.35; 12 studies, 1235 participants; very low-certainty evidence), although the evidence is very uncertain. Most studies had at least two domains at high risk of bias. Postoperative blood loss was probably lower in the upper hemi-sternotomy group (MD -153 mL, 95% CI -246 to -60; 8 studies, 767 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Low-certainty evidence suggested that there may be no change in pain scores by upper hemi-sternotomy (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.19, 95% CI -0.43 to 0.04; 5 studies, 649 participants). Upper hemi-sternotomy may result in little to no difference in quality of life (MD 0.03 higher, 95% CI 0 to 0.06 higher; 4 studies, 624 participants; low-certainty evidence). Two studies reporting index admission costs concluded that limited sternotomy may be more costly at index admission in the UK National Health Service (MD 1190 GBP more, 95% CI 420 GBP to 1970 GBP, 2 studies, 492 participants; low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence was of very low to moderate certainty. Sample sizes were small and underpowered to demonstrate differences in some outcomes. Clinical heterogeneity was also noted. Considering these limitations, there may be little to no effect on mortality. Differences in extracorporeal support times are uncertain, comparing upper hemi-sternotomy to full sternotomy for aortic valve replacement. 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 also 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.

Aortic Valve Replacement: Understanding Predictors for the Optimal Ministernotomy Approach

INTRODUCTION

The most common minimally invasive approach for aortic valve replacement (AVR) is the partial upper mini-sternotomy. The aim of this study is to understand which preoperative computed tomography (CT) features are predictive of longer operations in terms of cardio-pulmonary bypass timesand cross-clamp times.

METHODS

From 2011 to 2022, we retrospectively selected 246 patients which underwent isolated AVR and had a preoperative ECG-gated CT scan. On these patients, we analysed the baseline anthropometric characteristics and the following CT scan parameters: aortic annular dimensions, valve calcium score, ascending aorta length, ascending aorta inclination and aorta-sternum distance.

RESULTS

We identified augmented body surface area (>1.9 m2), augmented annular diameter (>23 mm), high calcium score (>2500 Agatson score) and increased aorta-sternum distance (>30 mm) as independent predictors of elongated operation times (more than two-fold).

CONCLUSIONS

Identifying the preoperative predictive factors of longer operations can help surgeons select cases suitable for minimally invasive approaches, especially in a teaching context.

Is It Reasonable to Perform Isolated SAVR by Residents in the TAVI Era?

BACKGROUND

The role of conventional surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is increasingly questioned since the indication for transcatheter aortic valve implantations (TAVIs) is currently extended. While the number of patients referred to SAVR decreases, it is unclear if SAVR should be performed by junior resident surgeons in the course of a heart surgeons training.

METHODS

Patients with isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR) were analyzed with respect to the surgeon's qualification. AVR performed by resident surgeons was compared with AVR by senior surgeons. The collective was analyzed with respect to clinical short-term outcomes comparing full sternotomy (FS) with minimally invasive surgery and ministernotomy (MS) with right anterior thoracotomy (RAT) after a 1:1 propensity score matching.

RESULTS

The 30-day all-cause mortality was 2.3 and 3.4% for resident versus senior AVR groups, cerebrovascular event rates were 1.1 versus 2.6%, and no cases of significant paravalvular leak were detected. Clinical short-term outcomes between FS and minimally invasive access, as well after MS and RAT were comparable.

CONCLUSION

Our current data show feasibility and safety of conventional SAVR procedure performed by resident surgeons in the era of TAVI. Minimally invasive surgery should be trained and performed in higher volumes early in the educational process as it is a safe treatment option.

Difficult airway management and low Bispectral Index (BIS) in a patient with left Bochdalek congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH)

BACKGROUND

Bochdalek congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH) is a developmental defect in the posterolateral diaphragm, allowing herniation of abdominal contents into the thorax causing mechanical compression of the developing lung parenchyma and lung hypoplasia. We describe a case of an adult patient with a Bochdalek hernia who underwent minimally invasive right thoracotomy Perceval bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement (AVR) requiring one-lung ventilation (OLV) on the side of the hernia. This is a complex and challenging case that brings up numerous thought-provoking anesthetic implications. To the best of our knowledge, a Pubmed search did not reveal any publication to date of difficult airway management in an adult patient with CDH.

CASE PRESENTATION

The first major problem encountered was patient's crus habitus anatomical condition (exceedingly ventrally displaced trachea) Mallampati Class IV and Cormack-Lehane grade IV extremely difficult endotracheal intubation. Neither glottis nor epiglottis was visible on laryngoscopy; resulting in failed placement of the double-lumen endobronchial tube (DLT) following numerous attempts. The DLT was eventually placed via GlideScope videolaryngoscopy. Whereas the endobroncheal right lung block for left OLV was successfully placed using fiberopticscopy. The crus habitus encroached on OLV tidal volume by the cranially displaced ascending colon and left kidney. Anesthesia was maintained with remifentanil /sevoflurane; adjusted to maintain bispectral index (BIS) at 40-60. Digitally recorded BIS was 38-62 except when BIS precipitously declined to 14-38 (SR, suppression ratio < 10) for 25 min after termination of the cardiopulmonary bypass.

CONCLUSIONS

We report a case essentially dealing with an anatomically distorted difficult airway in a patient with left Bochdalek CDH undergoing a complex AVR. We describe anesthetic difficulties and unforeseen issues encountered; such as an extremely difficult DLT placement.

Ministernotomy compared with right anterior minithoracotomy for aortic valve surgery

OBJECTIVES

Ministernotomy and right anterior minithoracotomy are the 2 main techniques applied for minimally invasive aortic valve replacement. The goal of this study is to compare early and long-term outcomes of both techniques.

METHODS

The data of 2419 patients undergoing isolated minimally invasive aortic valve replacement between 1999 and 2019 were prospectively collected. Retrospectively, patients were divided into the ministernotomy group (n = 1352) and the minithoracotomy group (n = 1067).

RESULTS

After propensity score matching, 986 patients remained in each group. Operation time and rate of conversion to full sternotomy were significantly higher in the minithoracotomy group than in the ministernotomy group (184.6 ± 45.2 vs 241.3 ± 68.6, relative risk, 2.54, P = .005 and .09 vs .23, relative risk, 1.45, P = .013, respectively). The 30-day mortality, excluding cardiac death, was lower in the ministernotomy group than in the minithoracotomy group (0.012 vs 0.028, relative risk, 1.41, P = .011, respectively); the intensive care unit length of stay (12.4 vs 16.5, relative risk, 1.62, P = .037, respectively) and hospital length of stay (5.4 vs 8.7, relative risk, 1.74 P = .028, respectively) were significantly longer in the minithoracotomy group. The minithoracotomy surgical approach was the strongest independent predictor of early mortality (odds ratio, 4.24 [1.67-7.35], P = .002). The actuarial survival by Kaplan-Meier analysis at 1, 3, 5, 10, and 20 years was significantly better in the ministernotomy group than in the minithoracotomy group (P = .0001). Actuarial freedom from reoperation at 5 years was 97.3% ± 4.4% in the ministernotomy group versus 95.8% ± 5.2% in the minithoracotomy group (P = .087).

CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement using ministernotomy is associated with reduced operative time, intensive care unit stay, hospital length of stay, and postoperative morbidities and incisional pain, and improves early and long-term mortality.

Consensus statement on aortic valve replacement via an anterior right minithoracotomy in the UK healthcare setting

The wide uptake of anterior right thoracotomy (ART) as an approach for aortic valve replacement (AVR) has been limited despite initial reports of its use in 1993. Compared with median sternotomy, and even ministernotomy, ART is considered to be less traumatic to the chest wall and to help facilitate quicker patient recovery. In this statement, a consensus agreement is outlined that describes the potential benefits of the ART AVR. The technical considerations that require specific attention are described and the initiation of an ART programme at a UK centre is recommended through simulation and/or use of specialist instruments in conventional cases. The use of soft tissue retractors, peripheral cannulation, modified aortic clamping and the use of intraoperative adjuncts, such as sutureless valves and/or automated knot fasteners, are important to consider in order to circumvent the challenges of minimal the altered exposure via an ART.A coordinated team-based approach that encourages ownership of the programme by team members is critical. A designated proctor/mentor is also recommended. The organisation of structured training and simulation, as well as planning the initial cases are important steps to consider.

Current trends in minimally invasive valve-sparing aortic root replacement-Best available evidence

BACKGROUND

Valve-sparing aortic root replacement such as the reimplantation (David) procedure is becoming increasingly popular. Despite the fact that the procedure is technically more complex, long-term studies demonstrated that excellent clinical outcomes in selected patients with durable repair are achievable. Benefits of minimal access cardiac surgery have stimulated enthusiasm in the use of this access for valve-sparing aortic root replacement.

METHODS

We have reviewed available literature on the topic of valve-sparing aortic root replacement (David procedure) via minimally invasive access through upper hemisternotomy in an attempt to assess current trends and to recognize potential advantages of this technique. Patient selection and preoperative work-up play important role in performing minimally invasive David procedure safely. Surgical technique corresponds to the standard David procedure, with a few exceptions related to the minimal access, and is performed via upper ministernotomy.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

Evidence from nonrandomized observational and comparative studies demonstrated excellent clinical outcomes of minimally invasive David procedure in selected patients with comparable perioperative mortality and outcomes to the conventional technique. To date, David procedure with a minimal access technique has been performed in carefully selected patients. We believe it could be particularly beneficial to provide younger patients (Marfan syndrome and bicuspid aortic valve) with minimally invasive David procedure as it can allow faster recovery with improved cosmesis with excellent outcomes. A decision to perform minimally invasive David procedure should be individualized to each patient and based on the experience of the team. Further large prospective randomized studies with long-term follow-up are still needed to confirm durability of minimal access technique.

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.

Perceval S, sutureless aortic valve: cost-consequence analysis

INTRODUCTION

Sutureless aortic valve prostheses have the potential of shortening ischemic time.

AIM

We conducted the present study to assess the clinical and economic impact of the biological, sutureless, self-expanding Perceval S valve since the effect of shortened operative times on hospital costs remains unclear.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This is a retrospective analysis. From January 2018 to January 2019, 29 patients underwent isolated aortic valve replacement with the Crown PRT bioprosthetic Aortic Valve, whereas 35 patients underwent aortic valve replacement with Perceval S (auto-expanded, sutureless, bioprosthesis). Preoperative data, hospital outcome, and health care resource consumption were compared, using χ2 and t-test.

RESULTS

Aortic cross-clamp, cardiopulmonary bypass, and operation times were significantly shorter in the Perceval S group (p < 0.001). Patients in the sutureless group required blood transfusion less frequently (p = 0.03) and had a shorter intensive care unit (ICU) stay (p = 0.01). Hospital stay (p = 0.57) and pacemaker implantation were similar between groups. The reduction of aortic cross-clamp, extracorporeal circulation times, and ICU stay resulted in reduced resource consumption in the sutureless group.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of the Perceval S valve is clinically safe and effective. A shorter procedural time in the sutureless group is associated with better clinical outcomes and reduced hospital costs.

Minimally Invasive versus Full Sternotomy SAVR in the Era of TAVR: An Institutional Review

In the era of advancing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) technology, traditional open surgery remains a valuable intervention for patients who are not TAVR candidates. We sought to compare perioperative variables and postoperative outcomes of minimally invasive and full sternotomy surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) at a single institution. A retrospective analysis of 113 patients who underwent isolated SAVR via full sternotomy or upper hemi-sternotomy between January 2015 and December 2019 at the University of Utah Hospital was performed. Preoperative comorbidities and demographic information were not different among groups, with the exception of diabetes, which was significantly more common in the full sternotomy group (p = 0.01). Median procedure length was numerically shorter in the minimally invasive group but was not significant following the Bonferroni correction (p = 0.047). Other perioperative variables were not significantly different. The two groups showed no difference in the incidence of postoperative adverse events (p = 0.879). As such, minimally invasive SAVR via hemi-sternotomy remains a safe and effective alternative to full sternotomy for patients who meet the criteria for aortic valve replacement.

Minimally invasive and full sternotomy in aortic valve replacement: a comparative early operative outcomes

Introduction

aortic valve replacement is usually performed through a median full sternotomy (MFS) in our department. Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MIAVR) has been recently adopted as a new approach. According to the literature, the superiority of MIAVR is controversial. In this study we report early post-operative outcomes in MIAVR compared with MFS access with reference to blood Loss, wound infections, post-operative recovery, morbidity and mortality.

Methods

this study was a prospective data collection from 36 consecutive patients undergoing isolated valve replacement. Two population study was identified, MIAVR group (group I n=18) and MFS group (group II n=18). Patients´ data were collected and analyzed using IBM SPSS statistics 21 software and Khi2 test has been used to compare the variables. The study variables are presented as numbers, percentage, median with interquartile range. Pre-operative planning was performed so that to obtain similar characteristics.

Results

in group I, upper mini-sternotomy was used in 12 patients and right mini-thoracotomy in 6 patients. There was no difference in term of mortality and morbidity. MIAVR was associated with longer CPB time (93.25 (58-161) vs 131 (75-215) mins, P=0.047) with no significant difference in term of ACC time (81 (33-162) vs 58.8 (59-102) mins P=0.158). MIAVR´ Patients had likely lower incidence of red blood cells transfusion (16.7 vs 52.3%) without significant difference about post-operative haemoglobin (P = 0,330). Patients in group I had shorter ventilation time (2.35 (1-12) vs 9.3 (1-48) hours P < 0.01), shorter ICU stay (2.44 (1-8) vs 4.25 (1-9) days, P = 0,024). The length of hospital stay was shorter, 6.5 (5-9) days in group I vs 7.4 (6-11), P=0.0274. Length of chest tube stay was shorter in group I (mean 1.53 vs 2.4 days, P=0,033). Wound infections were not found in both groups.

Conclusion

minimally invasive aortic valve replacement is associated with less blood loss, faster post-operative recovery faster post-operative recovery but increase operation time.

Supracommissural replacement of the ascending aorta and the aortic valve via partial versus full sternotomy-a propensity-matched comparison in a high-volume centre

OBJECTIVES

Full sternotomy (FS) is the common surgical access for patients undergoing open aortic valve replacement (AVR) with concomitant supracommissural replacement of the tubular ascending aorta. Since minimally invasive approaches are being used with increasing frequency in cardiac surgery, the aim of this study was to compare outcomes of patients undergoing AVR with supracommissural replacement of the tubular ascending aorta via FS versus partial upper sternotomy (PS).

METHODS

We included all patients who underwent elective AVR with concomitant supracommissural replacement of the tubular ascending aorta at our institution between 2000 and 2015. Exclusion criteria were emergency surgery, other major concomitant procedures and reoperations. After 2:1 propensity score matching, outcomes of patients with PS and FS were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 652 consecutive patients were included, 117 patients operated via PS and 234 patients operated via FS. Cardiopulmonary bypass time and aortic cross-clamp time of the PS and FS groups were 89 vs 92 min (P = 0.2) and 65 vs 70 min (P = 0.3), respectively. Postoperative morbidity was low and there were no significant differences in postoperative outcomes between patient groups. In-hospital mortality was 1.7% in the PS vs 0.4% in the FS group (P = 0.3). Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed no difference in mid-term survival (P = 0.3). Reoperation rates for valve or aortic complications were very low with no significant difference between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In a high-volume centre with extensive experience in minimally invasive cardiac surgery, AVR with concomitant supracommissural replacement of the tubular ascending aorta via PS results in similar outcomes with regard to safety and longevity when compared to conventional FS.

Influence of cardiopulmonary bypass set-up and management on clinical outcomes after minimally invasive aortic valve surgery

INTRODUCTION

Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MIAVR) requires changes in cannulation strategy and cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) management when compared to the conventional approach (CAVR). We aimed at evaluating if these differences could influence perfusion-related quality parameters and impair postoperative outcomes.

METHODS

Overall, 339 consecutive patients underwent MIAVR or CAVR between 2014 and 2020 and were analyzed retrospectively. To account for baseline differences, a propensity-matching analysis was performed, obtaining two groups of 97 patients each.

RESULTS

MIAVR group had longer CPB time [107 (95-120) vs 95 (86-105) min, p = .003] than CAVR group. Of note, average pump flow rate index [2.4 (2.2-2.5) vs 2.7 (2.4-2.8) l/min/m², p = .004] was lower in the MIAVR group. Mean arterial pressure was 73 = 9 mmHg vs 62 = 11 mmHg for the MIAVR and CAVR group, respectively (p < .001). Cell-salvaged blood was most commonly used in the MIAVR group (25.8% vs 11.3%, p = .02). Finally, CPB temperature was 32.8°C (32.1-34.8) for MIAVR group vs 34.9°C (33.2-36.1) for the CAVR group (p = .02). Postoperative complications were similar between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, despite differences in CPB parameters in patients undergoing CAVR and MIAVR, the incidences of adverse outcomes were similar. However, compared to CAVR, MIAVR was associated with shorter durations of mechanical ventilation and hospital stay as well as less transfusion of blood products.

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.

Suspending Commissural Sutures for Aortic Valve Exposure in Minithoracotomy Aortic Valve Replacement

Although it is attractive, a limitation of aortic valve (AV) replacement (AVR) through a mini-thoracotomy approach (mini-AVR) is the limited exposure of the AV. Here, we present a simple exposure technique named “suspending commissural sutures” for a more efficient mini-AVR. The technique involves making 3 half-depth stitches with 1-0 silk at each of the commissures, which are anchored to each corresponding pericardial surface. These stitches are tightened up so that the aortic root is axially expanded and is pulled upward. The technique of suspending commissural stitches seems to offer reasonable exposure of the AV in mini-AVR, and shows excellent early surgical outcomes.

Minimally invasive aortic valve surgery

Since their introduction, it has been demonstrated that minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MIAVR) approaches are safe and effective for the treatment of aortic valve diseases. To date, the main advantage of these approaches is represented by the reduced surgical trauma, with a subsequent reduced complication rate and faster recovery. This makes such approaches an appealing choice also for frail patients [obese, aged, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)]. The standardization of the minimally invasive techniques, together with the implementation of preoperative workup and anesthesiological intra- and post-operative care, led to an amelioration of surgical results and reduction of surgical times. Moreover, the improvement of surgical technology and the introduction of new devices such as sutureless and rapid deployment (SURD) valves, has helped the achievement of comparable results to traditional surgery. However, transcatheter technologies are nowadays more and more important in the treatment of aortic valve disease, also in low risk patients. For this reason surgeons should put new efforts for further reducing the surgical trauma in the future, even taking inspiration from other disciplines. In this review, we aim to present a review of literature evidences regarding minimally invasive treatment of aortic diseases, also reflecting our personal experience with MIAVR techniques. This review could represent a tool for a well-structured patient assessment and preoperative planning, in order to safely carrying out an MIAVR procedure with satisfactory outcomes.

Comparing quality of life and postoperative pain after limited access and conventional aortic valve replacement: Design and rationale of the LImited access aortic valve replacement (LIAR) trial

BACKGROUND

Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) via limited access approaches ('mini-AVR') have proven to be safe alternative for the surgical treatment of aortic valve disease. However, it remains unclear whether these less invasive approaches are associated with improved quality of life and/or reduced postoperative pain when compared to conventional SAVR via full median sternotomy (FMS).

STUDY DESIGN

The LImited access Aortic valve Replacement (LIAR) trial is a single-center, single blind randomized controlled clinical trial comparing 2 arms of 80 patients undergoing limited access SAVR via J-shaped upper hemi-sternotomy (UHS) or conventional SAVR through FMS. In all randomized patients, the diseased native aortic valve is planned to be replaced with a rapid deployment stented bioprosthesis. Patients unwilling or unable to participate in the randomized trial will be treated conventionally via SAVR via FMS and with implantation of a sutured valve prosthesis. These patients will participate in a prospective registry.

STUDY METHODS

Primary outcome is improvement in cardiac-specific quality of life, measured by two domains of the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire up to one year after surgery. Secondary outcomes include, but are not limited to: generic quality of life measured with the Short Form-36, postoperative pain, perioperative (technical success rate, operating time) and postoperative outcomes (30-day and one-year mortality), complication rate and hospital length of stay.

CONCLUSION

The LIAR trial is designed to determine whether a limited access approach for SAVR ('mini-AVR') is associated with improved quality of life and/or reduced postoperative pain compared with conventional SAVR through FMS.The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT04012060.

Minimally invasive aortic valve surgery in obese patients: Can the bigger afford the smaller?

BACKGROUND

Ministernotomy and right minithoracotomy are well-known minimally invasive approaches for aortic valve replacement (AVR); however, controversial opinions exist for their utilization in obese patients. The aim of this study is to check a potential positive role of minimally invasive surgery in this population.

METHODS

From January 2010 to November 2019, 613 obese patients (defined by a body mass index ≥30) underwent isolated AVR at our institution. Surgical approach included standard median sternotomy (176 patients), partial upper sternotomy (271 patients), or right anterior minithoracotomy (166 patients). Intra- and postoperative data were retrospectively collected.

RESULTS

Patients treated with minimally invasive approaches had shorter cardiopulmonary bypass time (p = .012) and aortic cross-clamp time (p = .022), mainly due to the higher utilization of sutureless valve implantation. They also presented advantages in terms of reduced postoperative ventilation time (p = .010), incidence of wound infection (p = .009), need of inotropic support (p = .004), and blood transfusion (p = .001). The univariable logistic regression showed the traditional full sternotomy approach as compared with ministernotomy (p = .026), active smoking (p = .009), peripheral vascular disease (p = .003), ejection fraction (p = .026), as well Logistic European system for cardiac operative risk evaluation (EuroSCORE; p = .015) as factors associated with hospital mortality. The multivariable logistic regression adjusted for the logistic EuroSCORE revealed that surgical approaches do not influence hospital mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Obese patients with severe aortic valve pathology can be treated with minimally invasive approaches offering a less biological insult and reduced postoperative complications, but without impact on hospital mortality.

Minimally Invasive Aortic Valve Surgery in Octogenarians: Reliable Option or Fallback Solution?

OBJECTIVE

Aortic valve disease is more and more common in western countries. While percutaneous approaches should be preferred in older adults, previous reports have shown good outcomes after surgery. Moreover, advantages of minimally invasive approaches may be valuable for octogenarians. We sought to compare outcomes of conventional aortic valve replacement (CAVR) versus minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MIAVR) in octogenarians.

METHODS

We retrospectively collected data of 75 consecutive octogenarians who underwent primary, elective, isolated aortic valve surgery through conventional approach (41 patients, group CAVR) or partial upper sternotomy (34 patients, group MIAVR).

RESULTS

Mean age was 81.9 ± 0.9 and 82.3 ± 1.1 years in CAVR and MIAVR patients, respectively (P = 0.09). MIAVR patients had lower 24-hour chest drain output (353.4 ± 207.1 vs 501.7 ± 229.9 mL, P < 0.01), shorter mechanical ventilation (9.6 ± 2.4 vs 11.3 ± 2.3 hours, P < 0.01), lower need for blood transfusions (35.3% vs 63.4%, P = 0.02), and shorter hospital stay (6.8 ± 1.6 vs 8.3 ± 4.3 days, P < 0.01). Thirty-day mortality was zero in both groups. Survival at 1, 3, and 5 years was 89.9%, 80%, and 47%, respectively, in the CAVR group, and 93.2%, 82.4%, and 61.8% in the MIAVR group, with no statistically significant differences (log-rank test, P = 0.35).

CONCLUSIONS

Aortic valve surgery in older patients provided excellent results, as long as appropriate candidates were selected. MIAVR was associated with shorter mechanical ventilation, reduced blood transfusions, and reduced hospitalization length, without affecting perioperative complications or mid-term survival.

Initial clinical experience with minimally invasive surgical aortic valve replacement

BACKGROUND

The ministernotomy approach is increasingly used in aortic valve surgery. However, the advantages are still a matter of discussion. The aim of this study was to compare the postoperative outcome in patients undergoing elective aortic valve operation, either through mini-sternotomy or conventional sternotomy.

METHODS

We included 317 patients who were treated for their aortic valve, 63 patients underwent a minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (mini-AVR) and 254 patients underwent a full-sternotomy AVR. Patients with endocarditis, those who underwent previous cardiac surgery and those who required a concomitant procedure were excluded from the analysis. The method of matching weights according to propensity score was used to adjust for differences between the two treatment groups, and outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

The mediastinal drainage was significantly lower at 6, 24 hours and total after mini-AVR procedure than after full-sternotomy AVR (median: 373 vs. 499 mL, P<0.001). However, the number of patients receiving packed red blood cells transfusion was similar. Overall, the hospital mortality was lower in the full-sternotomy group, 0% vs. 3.2%, P=0.039. No difference was found in the median hospital length of stay, perioperative myocardial infarction, postoperative incidence of new pacemaker implantation, stroke, prolonged mechanical ventilation and mediastinitis. No patients in the mini-AVR group experienced paravalvular leakage. Midterm survival resulted in no difference between the treatment groups at 4-year (90.5% vs. 95.2%), P=0.75.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the minimally invasive surgery for AVR may increasingly be applied, our initial experience calls for a careful approach of adapting this procedure.

Minithoracotomy versus full sternotomy for isolated aortic valve replacement: Propensity matched data from two centers

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive approaches to isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR) continue to gain popularity. This study compares outcomes of AVR through right anterolateral thoracotomy (RALT) to those of AVR through full median sternotomy (MS).

METHODS

Outcomes of two propensity-matched groups of 85 each, out of 250 patients that underwent isolated AVR through RALT or MS at our two institutions, were compared in a retrospective study.

RESULTS

Propensity score matching resulted in 85 matched pairs with balanced preoperative characteristics. Procedure times were significantly shorter in the RALT group (median difference: 13 min [-25 to -0.5]; p = .039), cardiopulmonary bypass times were longer (median difference: 17 min [10-23.5]; p = < .001) and ventilation times shorter (median difference: 259 min [-390 to -122.5]; p = < .001). There was no significant difference in aortic cross-clamp times (median difference: 1.5 min [-3.5 to 6.5]; p = .573). The RALT group had lower rates of perioperative platelet transfusions (odds ratio [OR] = 0.00 [0.00-0.59]; p = .0078) and postoperative pneumonia (OR = 0.10 [0.00-0.70]; p = .012), as well as shorter hospitalization times (median difference: 2.5 days [-4.5 to -1]; p = .005). There were no significant differences regarding paravalvular leakage (p = .25), postoperative stroke (p = 1), postoperative atrial fibrillation (p = .12) or 1-year-mortality (p = 1).

CONCLUSIONS

This study found RALT to be an equally safe approach to surgical AVR as MS. Furthermore, RALT showed advantages regarding important aspects of postoperative recovery, especially concerning pulmonary function.

Minimally Invasive Sutureless Aortic Valve Replacement With the Perceval S Bioprosthesis Through Ministernotomy: A Single-Center Experience

Objectives Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement has the potential advantage of faster postoperative recovery compared to open procedures. Moreover, aortic valve replacement with a sutureless valve shortens procedure time. The aim of this study is to report early postoperative outcomes and one-year survival of patients undergoing sutureless aortic valve replacement with the Perceval S bioprosthesis (LivaNova, Milan, Italy) through a ministernotomy. Methods A total of 110 patients underwent sutureless aortic valve replacement in our center with the Perceval S bioprosthesis through a ministernotomy between February 2016 and March 2019. Data regarding preoperative and operative details, hospital stay, postoperative outcomes within 30 days after surgery, and one-year mortality were assessed. Results The mean cross-clamping time and extracorporeal circulation time were 54 ± 14 and 78 ± 21 minutes, respectively. No conversion to full median sternotomy was needed perioperatively. In-hospital mortality was 0.9%. Postoperative peak gradient was 13.3 mmHg; no major paravalvular leakage or valve migration occurred postoperatively. Postoperative complications consisted of one (0.9%) patient requiring full sternotomy for bleeding and two (1.8%) patients requiring re-ministernotomy due to acute tamponade. Pacemaker implantation was needed in four (3.6%) patients. Postoperative ischemic stroke rate and new-onset atrial fibrillation were 0.9% (n = 1) and 20% (n = 22), respectively, and one-year survival was 97.3%. Median intensive care unit and hospital stay were one and eight day(s), respectively. Conclusion Minimally invasive sutureless aortic valve replacement with the Perceval S bioprosthesis through a ministernotomy appears to be a safe procedure with good postoperative results and one-year survival. Further follow-up is needed to evaluate long-term outcomes.

Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement with sutureless and rapid deployment valves: a report from an international registry (Sutureless and Rapid Deployment International Registry)†

OBJECTIVES

The impact of sutureless and rapid deployment (SURD) valves on the clinical outcomes of patients undergoing minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MI-AVR) has still to be defined. The aim of this study was to assess clinical characteristics and in-hospital results of patients receiving SURD-AVR through less invasive approaches in the large population of the Sutureless and Rapid Deployment International Registry (SURD-IR).

METHODS

Of the 1935 patients who received primary isolated SURD-AVR between 2009 and 2018, a total of 1418 (73.3%) underwent MI interventions and were included in this analysis. SURD-AVR was performed using upper ministernotomy in 56.4% (n = 800) of cases and anterior right thoracotomy in 43.6% (n = 618). Perceval S was implanted in 1011 (71.3%) patients and Edwards Intuity or Intuity Elite in 407 (28.7%) patients.

RESULTS

Overall in-hospital mortality and stroke rates were 1.7% and 2%, respectively. A definitive pacemaker implantation was reported in 9% of cases and significantly decreased over the observational period, from 20.6% to 5.6% (P = 0.002). The Perceval valve was associated with shorter operative times and was more frequently implanted in patients receiving anterior right thoracotomy incision. The Intuity valve was preferred in younger patients and revealed superior postoperative haemodynamic results.

CONCLUSIONS

SURD-AVR was largely performed through less invasive approaches and can be considered as a primary indication in MI surgery. In the SURD-IR cohort, MI SURD-AVR using both Perceval and Intuity valves appeared a safe and reproducible procedure associated with promising early results.

Minimally Invasive vs Conventional Aortic Valve Replacement With Rapid-Deployment Bioprostheses

BACKGROUND

The aim of this multicenter retrospective study was to compare early and midterm clinical and hemodynamic results of aortic valve replacement with rapid-deployment bioprostheses performed through conventional full-sternotomy vs mini-sternotomy.

METHODS

Data from the Italian multicenter registry of aortic valve replacement with rapid-deployment bioprostheses (INTU-ITA registry) were analyzed. Patients were divided into 2 groups: full sternotomy (FS) and ministernotomy (MS). Primary endpoint was the comparison of early and midterm mortality. Secondary endpoints were: comparison of intraoperative variables, complications, and hemodynamic performance. A propensity score weighting approach was used for data analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 1057 patients were analyzed: 435 (41.2%) and 622 (58.8%) in group FS and MS, respectively. Thirty-day mortality was 1.6% and 0.6% in FS and MS groups, respectively (P = .074). cardiopulmonary bypass time was 78.5 minutes and 83 minutes in FS and MS groups, respectively (P = .414). In the overall cohort, the incidence of intraoperative complications and of device success was 3.8% (40 patients) and 95.9% (1014 patients), respectively, with no significant differences between groups. Survival at 1, 3, and 5 years was 94.1%, 98.1%, 88.5% and 91.8%, 85.2%, and 84.8% in FS and MS groups, respectively (P = .412). The 2 groups showed similar postoperative gradients (median mean gradient, FS: 10.0 mm Hg, MS: 11.0 mm Hg; P = .170) and also similar incidence of patient-prosthesis mismatch (FS: 7%, MS: 6.4%, P = .647).

CONCLUSIONS

According to our data, rapid-deployment bioprostheses allow the performance of minimally invasive aortic valve replacement with similar surgical times and similar clinical and hemodynamic outcomes to conventional surgery and should be considered the first choice in these procedures.

Aortic valve replacement using stented or sutureless/rapid deployment prosthesis via either full-sternotomy or a minimally invasive approach: a network meta-analysis

Background

New technologies such as sutureless or rapid deployment prosthetic valves and access via minimally invasive incisions offer alternatives to traditional full-sternotomy aortic valve replacement (SAVR). However, a comprehensive comparison of these surgical techniques along with alternative valve prosthesis has not been completed.

Methods

Electronic databases were searched for studies comparing outcomes for SAVR, minimally invasive AVR (MiAVR), sutureless/rapid-deployment AVR (SuAVR) via full-sternotomy, or minimally invasive SuAVR (MiSuAVR) from their inception until September 2018. Early postoperative outcomes and follow-up data were included in a Bayesian network meta-analysis.

Results

Twenty-three studies with 8,718 patients were identified. Compared with standard SAVR, SuAVR had significantly lower incidence of postoperative AF [odds ratio (OR) 0.33, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.14-0.79, P=0.013] and MiSuAVR greater requirement for postoperative permanent pacemaker (OR 2.27, 95% CI: 1.25-4.14, P=0.008). All sutureless/rapid-deployment procedures had reduced cardiopulmonary bypass and cross-clamp times, by a mean of 25.9 and 25.0 min, respectively. Hospital length of stay (LOS), but not intensive care LOS, was reduced for all groups (MiAVR -1.53 days, MiSuAVR -2.79 days, and SuAVR 3.37 days). A signal towards reduced early mortality, wound infections, and acute kidney injury was noted in both sutureless/rapid-deployment and minimally invasive techniques but did not achieve significance. Sutureless/rapid-deployment procedures had favourable survival and freedom from valve related reoperation, however follow-up times were short and demonstrated significant heterogeneity between intervention groups.

Conclusions

Minimally invasive and sutureless techniques demonstrate equivalent early postoperative outcomes to SAVR and may reduce ventilation time, hospital LOS and postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) burden.

[Aortic valve replacement via J-shaped partial upper sternotomy: randomized trial, mid-term results]

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of aortic valve replacement through upper partial J-shaped sternotomy compared to conventional sternotomy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

There were 240 procedures of isolated aortic valve replacement for the period 2012-2017. According to inclusion criteria, 112 patients were randomized into 2 groups: group I - median sternotomy, group II - upper partial J-shaped sternotomy. Mean age of patients was 56.1±14.3 and 53.1±14.9 years, respectively (p=0.284). Females prevailed in both groups (55.4% vs. 57.1%, p=0.848). Peak pressure gradient on the aortic valve was 106.2±23.9 and 102.8±25.3 mm Hg, respectively (p=0.484).

RESULTS

In-hospital mortality was 1.8% (n=1) in group I (p=0.315). Incidence of postoperative complications (complete atrioventricular blockade, ventricular septal defect) was similar (p=1.0). Mean time cross clamping in I and II groups was 65.5±12.5 and 64.7±13.1 min (p=0.729). Mean follow-up period was 31.6 and 33.5 months, respectively. Kaplan-Meier survival rate was 92.6 and 93.0%, respectively (log-rank test=0,767). Freedom from thromboembolic events was 91.7 and 90% (log-rank test=0.213).

CONCLUSION. U

Pper partial J-shaped sternotomy is safe and effective for aortic valve surgery and characterized by similar outcomes compared to conventional sternotomy.

Is it safe to move away from a full sternotomy for aortic valve replacement?

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgical approaches have gained popularity among patients and surgeons. The aim of this project was to assess the safety of initiating aortic valve replacement via an anterior right thoracotomy program.

METHODS

Between May 2015 and May 2019, data of all isolated primary aortic valve replacements were extracted retrospectively from our prospectively collected database and categorized into conventional median sternotomy, hemisternotomy, and anterior right thoracotomy cases. In total, 661 patients underwent isolated primary aortic valve replacement, of whom 429 (65%) had a median sternotomy, 126 (19%) had a hemisternotomy, and 106 (16%) had an anterior right thoracotomy. Preoperative characteristics were similar in each of the three groups. Statistical testing of the surgical groups was undertaken using the chi-square test for categorical variables and one-way analysis of variance with Tukey post-hoc pairwise tests (where appropriate) for continuous variables, to identify differences between pairs of data.

RESULTS

Cardiopulmonary bypass and crossclamp times were significantly longer in the anterior right thoracotomy group compared to the hemisternotomy and median sternotomy groups (p < 0.001). Blood loss was significantly less and hospital stay significantly shorter in the hemisternotomy group compared to median sternotomy group but not the anterior right thoracotomy group. Mortality, stroke, renal, gastrointestinal and respiratory complications showed no statistical differences.

CONCLUSION

Surgical aortic valve replacement had a very low mortality and morbidity in our experience, and it is safe to start a minimal access program for aortic valve replacement.

The sutureless and rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement international registry: lessons learned from more than 4,500 patients

The treatment options for patients with aortic valve disease have considerably expanded over the last decade. The remarkable advances in catheter-based technology, the popularizing of minimally invasive (MI) surgery, and the introduction of new valve technologies, such as sutureless and rapid-deployment (SURD) valves have led to a paradigm shift in the management of aortic valve pathologies. Yet, given their recent introduction, the current evidence on sutureless and rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement (SURD-AVR) has been limited thus far. The Sutureless and Rapid-Deployment Aortic Valve Replacement International Registry (SURD-IR) was established in 2015 by a consortium of 18 research centers to assess safety, efficacy, short- and long-term outcomes of SURD-AVR interventions. The present keynote lecture aims to assess and comment on the real-world evidence for SURD-AVR surgery generated from the SURD-IR.

Right anterior mini-thoracotomy and sutureless valves: the perfect marriage

Background

A minimally invasive approach (MIA) reduces mortality and morbidity in patients referred for aortic valve replacement (AVR). Sutureless technology facilitates a MIA. We describe our experience with the sutureless Perceval (LivaNova, Italy) aortic bioprosthesis through a right anterior mini-thoracotomy (RAMT) approach.

Methods

Between March 2011 and October 2019, 1,049 patients underwent AVR with Perceval bioprosthesis. Five hundred and three patients (48%) were operated through a RAMT approach in the second intercostal space. Considering only isolated AVR (881), 98% of patients were operated with MIA, and Perceval in RAMT approach was performed in 57% of these patients. Eight patients (1.6%) had previously undergone cardiac surgery. The prosthesis sizes implanted were: S (n=91), M (n=154), L (n=218) and XL (n=40). Concomitant procedures were mitral valve surgery (n=6), tricuspid valve repair (n=1), mitral valve repair and tricuspid valve repair (n=1) and miectomy (n=2). Mean age was 78±4 years (range, 65-89 years), 317 patients were female (63%) and EuroSCORE II was 5.9%±8.4%.

Results

The 30-day mortality was 0.8% (4/503). Cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and aortic cross-clamp times were 81.6±30.8 and 50.3±24.5 minutes respectively for stand-alone procedures. In two patients, early moderate paravalvular leakage appeared as a result of incomplete expansion of the sutureless valve due to oversizing of the bioprosthesis, requiring reoperations at two and nine postoperative days with sutured aortic bioprosthesis implantation. Permanent pacemaker implantation within the first thirty days was necessary in 26 (5.2%) patients. At the mean follow-up of 4.6 years (range, 1 month to 8.6 years), survival was 96%, freedom from reoperation was 99.2%, and mean transvalvular pressure gradient was 11.9±4.3 mmHg.

Conclusions

AVR with the Perceval bioprosthesis in a RAMT approach is a safe and feasible procedure associated with low mortality and excellent hemodynamic performance. Sutureless technology facilitates a RAMT approach.

Minimally invasive aortic root surgery: Midterm results in a 2-year follow-up

OBJECTIVES

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) via partial upper sternotomy (PUS) for aortic root surgery represents an alternative to the full median sternotomy (FMS). PUS offers less operative trauma. We analyzed the midterm outcome of root replacement (Bentall) or valve-sparing root replacement (David) via PUS to evaluate the safety of this access.

METHODS

Between November 2011 to April 2017, a total of 47 consecutive patients underwent aortic root surgery with aortic aneurysm and/or localized aortic dissection through Bentall or David operation through PUS mean age (57.9 ± 10.5 years). Bentall operation was performed in 36 patients (77%), whereas 11 patients (23%) received a David procedure. The outcome was carried out in 6-months, 1-year, and 2-years-follow up.

RESULTS

Mean operation time was 287.3 ± 72.6 minutes, mean cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time 174 ± 54.8 minutes, mean cross-clamp time 133 ± 33.1 minutes. Rethoracotomy-rate was (4.2%). Superficial wound healing disturbance was (2%) and no deep sternal infection or sternum instability occurred. Hospitalization-and intensive care unit-stay was 11.8 ± 4.4 and 1.9 ± 1.3 days with a total median ventilation-time of 10 (IQR 7.5-13.5) hours. There was no 30-day-mortality. After 2 years the total rate of mortality, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, and redo surgery was (6.3%, 4.2%, and 4.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive aortic root surgery via partial upper sternotomy could be a safe alternative to the full median sternotomy. It requires longer operative times but reduces postoperative morbidity with good postoperative outcome.

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.

Does minimal invasive cardiac surgery reduce the incidence of post-operative atrial fibrillation?

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common post-operative complication and tends to be the most common arrhythmia after cardiac surgery. The etiology and risk factors for post-operative AF are poorly understood, but older age, large left atrium, diffuse coronary artery disease, a history of AF paroxysms and in general, pre-existing cardiac conditions that cause restricting and susceptibility towards inflammation have been consistently linked with post-operative atrial fibrillation (POAF). It has been traditionally thought that post-operative AF is transient, well-tolerated, benign to the patient and self-limiting complication of cardiac surgery that was temporary and easily treated. However, recent evidence suggests that POAF may be more "malignant" than previously thought, associated with follow-up mortality and morbidity. Several minimally invasive approaches, including the right parasternal approach, upper and lower mini-sternotomy (MS), V-shaped, Z-shaped, inverse-T, J-, reverse-C and reverse-L partial MS, transverse sternotomy and right mini-thoracotomy, have been developed for cardiac surgery operations since 1993 and have been associated with better outcomes and lower perioperative morbidity compared to full sternotomy (FS). The common goal of several minimally invasive approaches is to reduce invasiveness and surgical trauma. According to a statement from the American Heart Association (AHA), the term "minimally invasive" refers to a small chest wall incision that does not include a FS. This review is aimed to evaluate the use of minimally invasive techniques like mini-sternotomy, mini-thoracotomy and hybrid techniques versus conventional techniques which are used in cardiac surgery and to compare the frequency of post-operative AF and its effect on post-operative complications, morbidity and mortality, after cardiac surgery operations with FS versus cardiac surgery operations with the use of minimally invasive techniques.

Initial Experience of Minimally Invasive Concomitant Aortic and Mitral Valve Replacement/Repair at a Tertiary Care Cardiac Centre of a Developing Country

Introduction

Minimally invasive double valve replacement (DVR) surgery through a small transverse anterior thoracotomy is an alternate technique to sternotomy for concomitant aortic and mitral valve (AVR, MVR) surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate the in-hospital and early outcomes of direct vision minimal invasive double valve surgery (DVMI-DVR) at a tertiary care cardiac center of a developing country.

Methods

This study was conducted at the National Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases Karachi, Pakistan from January 2018 to September 2018. Nineteen consecutive patients undergoing DVMI-DVR for aortic and mitral disease without any prior cardiac surgery were included in this study. For all procedures, access was obtained through small transverse anterior thoracotomy incision with wedge resection (Chaudhry’s Wedge) of sternum opposite to the third and fourth costosternal joints. Patients were observed during their hospital stay and the following variables were observed the length of hospital stay (LOHS), ventilator support, intensive care unit (ICU) stay, pain score, and mortality. The pain score was assessed using the visual analog scale (VAS).

Results

The male/female ratio was 11:8 with a mean age of 35 ± 12 years with mean EuroSCORE of 6.6 ± 3.5%. The mean total bypass time was 129.8 ± 23.83 min (range: 98-181 minutes). The mean mechanical ventilation time was 3.16 ± 1.12 hours (range: 2-6 hours). The mean intensive care unit (ICU) stay was 41.84 ± 8.36 hours. The mean post-operative LOHS was 5.63 ± 1.12 days (range: 4-8 days). We had zero frequency of wound infection and surgical mortality. The mean pain score was 4.32 (on a predefined pain scale of one to nine with a high value indicating severe pain).

Conclusion

Minimally invasive DVR surgery is a safe and reproducible technique with comparable outcomes such as postoperative pain score (4.32 ± 2.05), ventilation time (3.16 ± 1.12 hours), ICU stay (41.84 ± 8.36 hours), and hospital stay (5.63 ± 1.12 days). In terms of mortality, operative times, ICU stay, and hospital stay, the minimally invasive DVR is at least comparable to those achieved with median sternotomy. Further prospective randomized studies are needed to validate our findings.

Minimally Invasive Sutureless Aortic Valve Replacement is Associated With Improved Outcomes in Patients With Left Ventricular Dysfunction

Objective

Patients with severe aortic stenosis and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) have a poor prognosis compared with patients with preserved LVEF. To evaluate the impact of sutureless Perceval (LivaNova, Italy) aortic bioprosthesis on LVEF and clinical outcomes in patients with baseline left ventricular (LV) dysfunction who underwent isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR).

Methods

Between March 2011 and August 2017, 803 patients underwent AVR with Perceval bioprosthesis implantation. Fifty-two isolated AVR had preoperative LVEF ≤45%. Mean age of these patients was 77 ± 6 years, 24 patients were female (46%), and mean EuroSCORE II was 9.4% ± 4.8%. Perceval bioprosthesis was implanted in 9 REDO operations. In 43 patients (83%), AVR was performed in minimally invasive surgery with an upper ministernotomy ( n = 13) or right anterior minithoracotomy ( n = 30).

Results

One patient died in hospital. Cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic cross-clamp times were 85.5 ± 26 minutes and 55.5 ± 19 minutes, respectively. At mean follow-up of 33 ± 20 months (range: 1 to 75 months), survival was 90%, freedom from reoperation was 100%, and mean transvalvular pressure gradient was 11 ± 5 mmHg. LVEF improved from 37% ± 7% preoperatively to 43% ± 8% at discharge ( P < 0.01) and further increased to 47% ± 9% at follow-up ( P = 0.06), LV mass decreased from 149.8 ± 16.9 g/m2 preoperatively to 115.3 ± 11.6 g/m2 at follow-up ( P < 0.001), and moderate paravalvular leakage occurred in 1 patient without hemolysis not requiring any treatment.

Conclusions

AVR with sutureless aortic bioprosthesis implantation in patients with preoperative LV dysfunction demonstrated a significant immediate and early improvement in LVEF.

Improved Patient Recovery With Minimally Invasive Aortic Valve Surgery: A Propensity-Matched Study

Objective

Despite conflicting evidence available, minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MIAVR) is increasingly used as an alternative to full sternotomy. We sought to compare early outcomes of aortic valve replacement through a full sternotomy (conventional aortic valve replacement [CAVR]) and upper ministernotomy (MIAVR).

Methods

We analyzed 297 patients having undergone primary, elective, isolated MIAVR or CAVR between January 2014 and June 2018. Following propensity score matching, 120 patients remained in each group.

Results

MIAVR required longer bypass (93 ± 26 vs 81 ± 24 minutes, P < 0.01) and operative times (214 ± 39 vs 182 ± 37 minutes, P < 0.01). However, aortic cross-clamp times were comparable (57 ± 17 vs 54 ± 14 minutes for MIAVR and CAVR, respectively, P = 0.14). MIAVR had less 24-hour blood loss (253 ± 204 vs 323 ± 296 mL, P = 0.03), less red blood cells transfusions [1.4 packs (1.1 o 1.9) vs 2.1 packs (1.8 to 2.7), P = 0.01], and shorter assisted ventilation time (7.1 ± 3.3 vs 9.7 ± 3.8 hours, P < 0.01) when compared to CAVR. These results led to significantly shorter intensive care unit and hospital stays for MIAVR patients (2.5 ± 1.3 vs 3.4 ± 1.1 days, P < 0.01 and 6.9 ± 4.1 vs 8.2 ± 4.8 days, P = 0.03, respectively). Thirty-day mortality and clinical outcomes did not differ significantly among groups.

Conclusions

MIAVR through upper ministernotomy was shown to be as safe and reliable as CAVR. Patient recovery time was improved by shortening mechanical ventilation and reducing blood loss and transfusions. These results may be significant for high-risk patients undergoing aortic valve surgery.