Ministernotomy versus median sternotomy for aortic valve replacement: a prospective, randomized study

Comparison of the Effects of Full Median Sternotomy vs. Mini-Incision on Postoperative Pain in Cardiac Surgery: A Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

It is not yet clear whether cardiac surgery by mini-incision (minimally invasive cardiac surgery [MICS]) is overall less painful than the conventional approach by full sternotomy (FS). A meta-analysis is necessary to investigate polled results on this topic.

METHODS

PubMed®/MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (or LILACS), and Scientific Electronic Library Online (or SciELO) were searched for all clinical trials, reported until 2022, comparing FS with MICS in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), mitral valve surgery (MVS), and aortic valve replacement (AVR), and postoperative pain outcome was analyzed. Main summary measures were the method of standardized mean differences (SMD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) and P-values (considered statistically significant when < 0.05).

RESULTS

In AVR, the general estimate of postoperative pain effect favored MICS (SMD 0.87 [95% CI 0.04 to 1.71], P=0.04). However, in the sensitivity analysis, there was no difference between the groups (SMD 0.70 [95% CI -0.69 to 2.09], P=0.32). For MVS, it was not possible to perform a meta-analysis with the included studies, because they had different methodologies. In CABG, the general estimate of the effect of postoperative pain did not favor any of the approaches (SMD -0.40 [95% CI -1.07 to 0.26], P=0.23), which was confirmed by sensitivity analysis (SMD -0.02 [95% CI -0.71 to 0.67], P=0.95).

CONCLUSION

MICS was not globally less painful than the FS approach. It seems that postoperative pain is more related to the degree of tissue retraction than to the size of the incision.

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.

Minimally invasive valve surgery including patients of combined simultaneous surgery: a retrospective study

OBJECTIVE

This study investigated the perioperative safety and advantages of performing a minimally invasive valve surgery (MIVS) and conducting a preliminary examination of the combined simultaneous surgery (CSS).

METHODS

A total of 29 patients (16 men and 13 women; mean age, 58.41 ± 13.08 years) who underwent MIVS at our center from July 2021 to March 2022 were selected. Among them, 16 patients underwent aortic valve surgery (AVS), 13 patients underwent mitral valve surgery (MVS), and four patients additionally underwent CSS.

RESULTS

The MIVS time ranged from 165 to 420 min, with a mean of 230.54 ± 54.61 min; the cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time ranged from 54 to 164 min, with a mean of 120.24 ± 25.98 min; the aortic cross-clamp (ACC) time ranged from 36 to 118 min, with a mean of 78.66 ± 21.01 min and an automatic heart resuscitating rate was 89.66%; the mean tracheal intubation time was 6.30 ± 3.87 h, and the median total postoperative drainage was 317.5 (35, 1470) ml. No difference was observed between preoperative and postoperative left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (61.90% ± 6.28% vs. 60.21% ± 5.52%, P = 0.281). The difference in postoperative drainage (419.20 ml ± 377.20 ml vs. 588.75 ml ± 673.63 ml, P = .461), tracheal intubation time (6.66 h ± 4.27 h vs. 4.63 h ± 1.11 h, P = .359), intensive care unit (ICU) stay (3.96 ± 8.62 days vs. 2.00 ± 0.816 days, P = .658), and postoperative hospital stay (9.96 ± 8.45 days vs. 8.25 ± 1.26 days, P = .694) between MIVS and CSS was not significant.

CONCLUSION

MIVS in our center may be safe and effective. Additionally, CSS may be a feasible option that could be performed after a thorough preoperative evaluation and multidisciplinary discussion.

Minimal Access Aortic Valve Surgery

Minimally invasive approaches to the aortic valve have been described since 1993, with great hopes that they would become universal and facilitate day-case cardiac surgery. The literature has shown that these procedures can be undertaken with equivalent mortality rates, similar operative times, comparable costs, and some benefits regarding hospital length of stay. The competing efforts of transcatheter aortic valve implantation for these same outcomes have provided an excellent range of treatment options for patients from cardiology teams. We describe the current state of the art, including technical considerations, caveats, and complications of minimal access aortic surgery and predict future directions in this space.

Minimally-invasive cardiac surgery: a bibliometric analysis of impact and force to identify key and facilitating advanced training

Background

The number of citations an article receives is a marker of its scientific influence within a particular specialty. This bibliometric analysis intended to recognise the top 100 cited articles in minimally-invasive cardiac surgery, to determine the fundamental subject areas that have borne considerable influence upon clinical practice and academic knowledge whilst also considering bibliometric scope. This is increasingly relevant in a continually advancing specialty and one where minimally-invasive cardiac procedures have the potential for huge benefits to patient outcomes.

Methods

The Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics) data citation index database was searched with the following terms: [Minimal* AND Invasive* AND Card* AND Surg*]. Results were limited to full text English language manuscripts and ranked by citation number. Further analysis of the top 100 cited articles was carried out according to subject, author, publication year, journal, institution and country of origin.

Results

A total of 4716 eligible manuscripts were retrieved. Of the top 100 papers, the median (range) citation number was 101 (51–414). The most cited paper by Lichtenstein et al. (Circulation 114(6):591–596, 2006) published in Circulation with 414 citations focused on transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation as a viable alternative to aortic valve replacement with cardiopulmonary bypass in selected patients with aortic stenosis. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery published the most papers and received the most citations (n = 35; 3036 citations). The United States of America had the most publications and citations (n = 52; 5303 citations), followed by Germany (n = 27; 2598 citations). Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, published the most papers of all institutions. Minimally-invasive cardiac surgery pertaining to valve surgery (n = 42) and coronary artery bypass surgery (n = 30) were the two most frequent topics by a large margin.

Conclusions

This work establishes a comprehensive and informative analysis of the most influential publications in minimally-invasive cardiac surgery and outlines what constitutes a citable article. Undertaking a quantitative evaluation of the top 100 papers aids in recognising the contributions of key authors and institutions as well as guiding future efforts in this field to continually improve the quality of care offered to complex cardiac patients.

Guidelines on enhanced recovery after cardiac surgery under cardiopulmonary bypass or off-pump

OBJECTIVE

To provide recommendations for enhanced recovery after cardiac surgery (ERACS) based on a multimodal perioperative medicine approach in adult cardiac surgery patients with the aim of improving patient satisfaction, reducing postoperative mortality and morbidity, and reducing the length of hospital stay.

DESIGN

A consensus committee of 20 experts from the French Society of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine (Société française d'anesthésie et de réanimation, SFAR) and the French Society of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery (Société française de chirurgie thoracique et cardio-vasculaire, SFCTCV) was convened. A formal conflict-of-interest policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. The entire guideline process was conducted independently of any industry funding. The authors were advised to follow the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to guide the assessment of the quality of evidence.

METHODS

Six fields were defined: (1) selection of the patient pathway and its information; (2) preoperative management and rehabilitation; (3) anaesthesia and analgesia for cardiac surgery; (4) surgical strategy for cardiac surgery and bypass management; (5) patient blood management; and (6) postoperative enhanced recovery. For each field, the objective of the recommendations was to answer questions formulated according to the PICO model (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome). Based on these questions, an extensive bibliographic search was carried out and analyses were performed using the GRADE approach. The recommendations were formulated according to the GRADE methodology and then voted on by all the experts according to the GRADE grid method.

RESULTS

The SFAR/SFCTCV guideline panel provided 33 recommendations on the management of patients undergoing cardiac surgery under cardiopulmonary bypass or off-pump. After three rounds of voting and several amendments, a strong agreement was reached for the 33 recommendations. Of these recommendations, 10 have a high level of evidence (7 GRADE 1+ and 3 GRADE 1-); 19 have a moderate level of evidence (15 GRADE 2+ and 4 GRADE 2-); and 4 are expert opinions. Finally, no recommendations were provided for 3 questions.

CONCLUSIONS

Strong agreement existed among the experts to provide recommendations to optimise the complete perioperative management of patients undergoing cardiac surgery.

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.

Conventional Versus Minimally Invasive Aortic Valve Replacement Surgery: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Meta-Regression

Objective: To assess the potential benefits of minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MIAVR) compared with conventional AVR (CAVR) by examining short-term outcomes. Methods: A systematic search identified randomized trials comparing MIAVR with CAVR. To assess study limitations and quality of evidence, we used the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and GRADE and performed random-effects meta-analysis. We used meta-regression and sensitivity analysis to explore reasons for diversity. Results: Thirteen studies (1,303 patients) were included. For the comparison of MIAVR and CAVR, the risk of bias was judged low or unclear and the quality of evidence ranged from very low to moderate. No significant difference was observed in mortality, stroke, acute kidney failure, infectious outcomes, cardiac events, intubation time, intensive care unit stay, reoperation for bleeding, and blood transfusions. Blood loss (mean difference [MD] = -130.58 mL, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -216.34 to -44.82, I² = 89%) and hospital stay (MD = -0.93 days, 95% CI = -1.62 to -0.23, I² = 81%) were lower with MIAVR. There were shorter aortic cross-clamp (MD = 5.99 min, 95% CI = 0.99 to 10.98, I² = 93%) and cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) times (MD = 7.75 min, 95% CI = 0.27 to 15.24, I² = 94%) in the CAVR group. In meta-regression analysis, we found that age was the variable with the greatest influence on heterogeneity. Conclusions: MIAVR seems to be an excellent alternative to CAVR, reducing hospital stay and incidence of hemorrhagic events. Despite significantly greater aortic cross-clamp and CPB times with MIAVR, this did not translate into adverse effects, with no changes in the results found with CAVR.

Converging rapid deployment prostheses with minimal access surgery: analysis of early outcomes

Background

Sutureless prostheses may have added benefit when combined with minimal access surgery, although this has not been fully assessed in the literature. This study aims to provide a comparative analysis of the Perceval valve comparing median sternotomy (MS) with mini-sternotomy (MIS).

Methods

A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data was conducted for all isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR), using the Perceval valve, for severe aortic stenosis cases in the period 2014 to 2019. Patients undergoing concomitant valve or revascularisation surgery were excluded.

Results

A total of 78 patients were included: MS group 41; MIS group 37. Operatively, bypass times were comparable between MS and MIS groups (mean 89.3 vs 83.4, p = 0.307), as were aortic cross clamp times (58.4 vs 55.9, p = 0.434). There were no operative deaths or new onset post-operative neurology. MIS was a predictor of reduced stay in the intensive care unit (coef − 3.25, 95% CI [− 4.93, − 0.59], p = 0.036) and hospital stay overall (p = 0.004). Blood transfusion units were comparable as were the incidence of heart block (n = 5 vs n = 3, p = 0.429) and new onset atrial fibrillation (n = 15 vs n = 9, p = 0.250). Follow-up echocardiography found a significant improvement in effective orifice area, left ventricular dimension and volume indices, and LVEF (p > 0.05) for all patients. Multivariate analysis found mini-sternotomy to be a predictor for reduced LV diastolic volume (coef − 0.35, 95% CI [− 1.02, − 0.05], p = 0.05).

Conclusions

The combination of minimal access surgery and sutureless AVR may enhance patient recovery and provide early LV remodelling.

Incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications in patients undergoing minimally invasive versus median sternotomy valve surgery: propensity score matching

Objective

Postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) are common incidents associated with an increased hospital stay, readmissions into the intensive care unit (ICU), increased costs, and mortality after cardiac surgery. Our study aims to analyze whether minimally invasive valve surgery (MIVS) can reduce the incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications compared to the full median sternotomy (FS) approach.

Methods

We reviewed the records of 1076 patients who underwent isolated mitral or aortic valve surgery (80 MIVS and 996 FS) in our institution between January 2015 and December 2019. Propensity score-matching analysis was used to compare outcomes between the groups and to reduce selection bias.

Results

Propensity score matching revealed no significant difference in hospital mortality between the groups. The incidence of PPCs was significantly less in the MIVS group than in the FS group (19% vs. 69%, respectively; P < 0.0001). The most common PPCs were atelectasis (P = 0.034), pleural effusions (P = 0.042), and pulmonary infection (P = 0.001). Prolonged mechanical ventilation time (> 24 h) (P = 0.016), blood transfusion amount (P = 0.006), length of hospital stay (P < 0.0001), and ICU stay (P < 0.0001) were significantly less in the MIVS group. Cardiopulmonary bypass (CBP), aortic cross-clamping, and operative time intervals were significantly longer in the MIVS group than in the matched FS group (P < 0.001). A multivariable analysis revealed a decreased risk of PPCs in patients undergoing MIVS (odds ratio, 0.25; 95% confidence interval, 0.006–0.180; P < 0.0001).

Conclusion

MIVS for isolated valve surgery reduces the risk of PPCs compared with the FS approach.

Comparative Evaluation of the Incidence of Postoperative Pulmonary Complications After Minimally Invasive Valve Surgery vs. Full Sternotomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials and Propensity Score-Matched Studies

Background: Postoperative pulmonary complications remain a leading cause of increased morbidity, mortality, longer hospital stays, and increased costs after cardiac surgery; therefore, our study aims to analyze whether minimally invasive valve surgery (MIVS) for both aortic and mitral valves can improve pulmonary function and reduce the incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications when compared with the full median sternotomy (FS) approach. Methods: A comprehensive systematic literature research was performed for studies comparing MIVS and FS up to February 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and propensity score-matching (PSM) studies comparing early respiratory function and pulmonary complications after MIVS and FS were extracted and analyzed. Secondary outcomes included intra- and postoperative outcomes. Results: A total of 10,194 patients from 30 studies (6 RCTs and 24 PSM studies) were analyzed. Early mortality differed significantly between the groups (MIVS 1.2 vs. FS 1.9%; p = 0.005). Compared with FS, MIVS significantly lowered the incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications (odds ratio 0.79, 95% confidence interval [0.67, 0.93]; p = 0.004) and improved early postoperative respiratory function status (mean difference -24.83 [-29.90, -19.76]; p < 0.00001). Blood transfusion amount was significantly lower after MIVS (p < 0.02), whereas cardiopulmonary bypass time and aortic cross-clamp time were significantly longer after MIVS (p < 0.00001). Conclusions: Our study showed that minimally invasive valve surgery decreases the incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications and improves postoperative respiratory function status.

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.

Mini-sternotomy versus conventional sternotomy for aortic valve replacement: a randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare clinical and health economic outcomes after manubrium-limited mini-sternotomy (intervention) and conventional median sternotomy (usual care).

DESIGN

A single-blind, randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

Single centre UK National Health Service tertiary hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR) surgery.

INTERVENTIONS

Intervention was manubrium-limited mini-sternotomy performed using a 5-7 cm midline incision. Usual care was median sternotomy performed using a midline incision from the sternal notch to the xiphisternum.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who received a red cell transfusion postoperatively and within 7 days of index surgery. Secondary outcomes included proportion of patients receiving a non-red cell blood component transfusion and number of units transfused within 7 days and during index hospital stay, quality of life and cost-effectiveness analyses.

RESULTS

270 patients were randomised, received surgery and contributed to the intention to treat analysis. No difference between mini and conventional sternotomy in red-cell transfusion within 7 days was found; 23/135 patients in each arm received a transfusion, OR 1.0 (95% CI 0.5 to 2.0) and risk difference 0.0 (95% CI -0.1 to 0.1). Mini-sternotomy reduced chest drain losses (mean 181.6 mL (SD 138.7) vs conventional, mean 306·9 mL (SD 348.6)); this did not reduce red-cell transfusions. Mean valve size and postoperative valve function were comparable between mini-sternotomy and conventional groups; 23 mm vs 24 mm and 6/134 moderate or severe aortic regurgitation vs 3/130, respectively. Mini-sternotomy resulted in longer bypass (82.7 min (SD 23.5) vs 59.6 min (SD 15.1)) and cross-clamp times (64.1 min (SD 17.1) vs 46·3 min (SD 10.7)). Conventional sternotomy was more cost-effective with only a 5.8% probability of mini-sternotomy being cost-effective at a willingness to pay of £20 000/QALY (Quality Adjusted Life Years).

CONCLUSIONS

AVR via mini-sternotomy did not reduce red blood cell transfusion within 7 days following surgery when compared with conventional sternotomy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN29567910; Results.

Benefits of rapid deployment aortic valve replacement with a mini upper sternotomy

BACKGROUND

Surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) is currently deemed the gold standard of care for patients with severe aortic stenosis. Currently, most AVRs are safely performed through a full median sternotomy approach. With an increasingly elderly and high-risk patient population, major advances in valve technology and surgical technique have been introduced to reduce perioperative risk and post-operative complications associated with the full sternotomy approach, in order to ensure surgical AVR remains the gold standard. For example, minimally invasive approaches (most commonly via mini sternotomy) have been developed to improve patient outcomes. The advent of rapid deployment valve technology has also been shown to improve morbidity and mortality by reducing cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic cross-clamp times, as well as facilitating the use of minimal access approaches. Rapid deployment valves were introduced into our department at the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh in 2014. The aim of this study is to investigate if utilising the combination of rapid deployment valves and a mini sternotomy minimally invasive approach resulted in improved outcomes in various patient subgroups.

METHODS

Over a 3-year period, we identified 714 patients who underwent isolated AVR in our centre. They were divided into two groups: 61 patients (8.5%) were identified who received rapid deployment AVR via J-shaped mini upper sternotomy (MIRDAVR group), whilst 653 patients (91.5%) were identified who received either a full sternotomy (using a conventional prosthesis or rapid deployment valve) or minimally invasive approach using a conventional valve (CONVAVR group). We retrospectively analysed data from our cardiac surgery database, including pre-operative demographics, intraoperative times and postoperative outcomes. Outcomes were also compared in two different subgroups: octogenarians and high-risk patients.

RESULTS

Pre-operative demographics showed that there were significantly more female and elderly patients in the MIRDAVR group. The MIRDAVR group had significantly reduced cardiopulmonary bypass (63.7 min vs. 104 min, p = 0.0001) and aortic cross-clamp times (47.3 min vs. 80.1 min, p = 0.0001) compared to the CONVAVR group. These results were particularly significant in the octogenarian population, who also had a reduced length of ICU stay (30.9 h vs. 65.6 h, p = 0.049). In high-risk patients (i.e. logistic EuroSCORE I > 10%), minimally invasive-rapid deployment aortic valve replacement is still beneficial and is also characterized by significantly shorter cardiopulmonary bypass time (69.1 min vs. 96.1 min, p = 0.03). However, post-operative correlations, such as length of ICU stay, become no more significant, likely due to serious co-morbidities in this patient group.

CONCLUSION

We have demonstrated that minimally invasive rapid deployment aortic valve replacement is associated with significantly reduced cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic cross-clamp times. This correlation is much stronger in the octogenarian population, who were also found to have significantly reduced length of ICU stay. Our study raises the suggestion that this approach should be utilised more frequently in clinical practice, particularly in octogenarian patients.

Quality of Life After Ministernotomy Versus Full Sternotomy Aortic Valve Replacement

Quality of life and patient satisfaction after ministernotomy have never been compared to conventional full sternotomy in randomized trials. The QUALITY-AVR trial is a single-blind, single-center, independent, randomized clinical trial comparing ministernotomy to full sternotomy in patients with isolated severe aortic stenosis scheduled for elective aortic valve replacement. One hundred patients were randomized in a 1:1 computational fashion. The primary endpoint was a difference between intervention groups of ≥0.10 points in change from baseline quality of life Questionnaire EuroQOL-index, measured at 1, 6, or 12 months. Secondary endpoints were differences in change from other baseline EuroQOL-index utilities, cardiac surgery-specific satisfaction questionnaire (SATISCORE), a combined safety endpoint of 4 major adverse complications at 1 month (all-cause mortality, acute myocardial infarction, neurologic events, and acute renal failure), bleeding through drains within the first 24 hours, intubation time, and other minor endpoints. Clinical follow-up was scheduled at baseline, 1, 6, and 12 months after randomization. Change from baseline mean difference EQ-5D-index was +0.20 points (95% confidence interval 0.10-0.30, P < 0.001) and median difference +0.14 (95% confidence interval 0.06-0.22, P < 0.001), favoring the ministernotomy group at 1 month. Patient satisfaction was also better at 1 month (Satiscore 83 ± 9 vs 77 ± 13 points; P = 0.010). The ministernotomy group had significantly less bleeding in the first 24 hours (299 ± 140 vs 509 ± 251 mL, P = 0.001). Ministernotomy provides a faster recovery with improved quality of life and satisfaction at 1 month compared to full sternotomy.

Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement with central cannulation: A cost-benefit analysis in a developing country

Background

Minimally-invasive approaches to aortic valve replacement (MIAVR) are technically and logistically demanding. However, few centers have started using these approaches with standard equipment because of the limited resources. We sought to report intra- and postoperative clinical outcomes and address health resource utilization after MIAVR.

Results

A total of 102 eligible patients who had aortic valve replacement were enrolled in a prospective, multicenter cohort study conducted from June 2015 to December 2017. Fifty patients underwent aortic valve surgery via upper inverted T-shaped hemi-sternotomy (MS), and 52 patients were operated using full sternotomy (FS) in two centers in a developing country. Central cannulation was performed in all cases. Major adverse cardiac events, pain, and wound complications were compared. A cost analysis was performed, and exposure and feasibility for cannulation were assessed. The mean length of MS skin incision was 5.82 ± 0.67 cm. Cumulative cross-clamp time was insignificant between both groups (91.87 ± 34.41 versus 94.91 ± 33.96 min; p = 0.66). MS exhibited shorter ventilation time (6.18 ± 1.86 versus 10.68 ± 12.78 h; p = 0.029) and intensive care stays (33.27 ± 19.75 versus 49.42 ± 47.1 h; p = 0.037). Major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) were compared, and MS group exhibited fewer transfusions (1.18 ± 0.89 versus 1.7 ± 0.97 units; p = 0.002), fewer pulmonary complications (1 (2%) versus 2 (3.8%); p < 0.001), and less sternotomy wound infection (1 (2%) versus 5 (9.6%); p = 0.048). Total operative mortality of 4.46% was recorded (n = 5). Significant cost reduction was recorded favoring MS; central cannulation saved $907.16 and carried a total cost reduction of $580 (9.3%) when compared with the FS approach (p < 0.0001).

Conclusions

With a lack of logistics in developing countries, MIAVR not only has a cosmetic advantage but carries a significant reduction in blood use, respiratory complications, pain, and cost. MIAVR can be feasible, with a rapid learning curve in developing centers.

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.

Improved operative and recovery times with mini-thoracotomy aortic valve replacement

Background

The small incisions of minimally invasive surgery have the proposed benefit of less surgical trauma, less pain, and faster recovery. This study was done to compare minimally invasive techniques for aortic valve replacement, including right anterior mini-thoracotomy and mini-sternotomy, to conventional sternotomy.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed 503 patients who underwent isolated aortic valve replacement at our institution from 2012 to 2015 using one of three techniques: 1) Mini-thoracotomy, 2) Mini-sternotomy, 3) Conventional sternotomy. Demographics, operative morbidity, mortality, and postoperative complications were compared.

Results

Of the 503 cases, 267 (53.1%) were mini-thoracotomy, 120 (23.8%) were mini-sternotomy, and 116 (23.1%) were conventional sternotomy. Mini-thoracotomy patients, compared to mini-sternotomy and conventional sternotomy, had significantly shorter bypass times [82 (IQ 67–113) minutes; vs. 117 (93.5–139.5); vs. 102.5 (85.5–132.5), respectively (p < 0.0001)], a lower incidence of prolonged ventilator support [3.75% vs. 9.17 and 12.9%, respectively (p = 0.0034)], and required significantly shorter ICU and postoperative stays, resulting in an overall shorter hospitalization [6 (IQ 5–9) days; vs. 7 (5–14.5); vs 9 (6–15.5), respectively (p < 0.05)]. Incidence of other postoperative complications were lower in the mini-thoracotomy group compared to mini-sternotomy and conventional sternotomy, without significance. Minimally invasive techniques trended towards better survival [mini-thoracotomy 1.5%, mini-sternotomy 1.67%, and conventional sternotomy 5.17% (p = 0.13)].

Conclusions

Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement approaches are safe, effective alternatives to conventional sternotomy. The mini-thoracotomy approach showed decreased operative times, decreased lengths of stay, decreased incidence of prolonged ventilator time, and a trend towards lower mortality when compared to mini-sternotomy and conventional sternotomy.

The Opportunities and Limitations of Minimally Invasive Cardiac Surgery

BACKGROUND

Over the past two decades, minimally invasive techniques for classic heart valve surgery and isolated bypass surgery have been developed that enable access to the heart via partial sternotomy for most aortic valve procedures and via sternotomy-free mini-thoracotomy for other procedures.

METHODS

We review the current evidence on minimally invasive cardiac surgery on the basis of pertinent randomized studies and database studies retrieved by a selective search in the MEDLINE and PubMed Central databases, as well as by the Google Scholar search engine.

RESULTS

A PubMed search employing the search term "minimally invasive cardiac surgery" yielded nearly 10 000 hits, among which there were 7 prospective, randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) on aortic valve replacement, with a total of 477 patients, and 3 RCTs on mitral valve surgery, with a total of 340 patients. Only limited reports of specified centers are currently available for multiple valvular procedures and multiple coronary artery bypass procedures. The RCTs reveal that the minimally invasive techniques are associated with fewer wound infections and faster mobilization, without any difference in survival. Minimally invasive procedures are technically demanding and have certain anatomical prerequisites, such as appropriate coronary morphology for multiple bypass operations and the position of the aorta in the chest for sternotomy-free aortic valve procedures. The articles reviewed here were presumably affected by selection bias, in that patients in the published studies were preselected, and there may have been negative studies that were not published at all.

CONCLUSION

Specialized surgeons and centers can now carry out many cardiac valvular and bypass operations via minithoracotomy rather than sternotomy. According to current evidence, these minimally invasive techniques yield results that are at least as good as classic open-heart surgery.

Quality of life, satisfaction and outcomes after ministernotomy versus full sternotomy isolated aortic valve replacement (QUALITY-AVR): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

During the last decade, the use of ministernotomy in cardiac surgery has increased. Quality of life and patient satisfaction after ministernotomy have never been compared to conventional full sternotomy in randomised trials. The aim of the study is to determine if this minimally invasive approach improves quality of life, satisfaction and clinical morbimortality outcomes.

METHODS/DESIGN

The QUALITY-AVR trial is a single-blind, single-centre, independent, and pragmatic randomised clinical trial comparing ministernotomy ("J" shaped upper hemisternotomy toward right 4th intercostal space) to full sternotomy in patients with isolated severe aortic stenosis scheduled for elective aortic valve replacement. One hundred patients will be randomised in a 1:1 computational fashion. Sample size was determined for the primary end point with alpha error of 0.05 and with power of 90% in detecting differences between intervention groups of ≥ 0.10 points in change from baseline quality of life Questionnaire EuroQOL-index (EQ-5D-5 L®), measured at 1, 6 or 12 months. Secondary endpoints are: the differences in change from other baseline EQ-5D-5 L® utilities (visual analogue scale, Health Index and Severity Index), cardiac surgery specific satisfaction questionnaire (SATISCORE®), a combined safety endpoint of four major adverse complications at 1 month (all-cause mortality, acute myocardial infarction, neurologic events and acute renal failure), bleeding through drains within the first 24 h, intubation time, postoperative hospital and intensive care unit length of stay, transfusion needs during the first 72 h and 1-year survival rates. Clinical follow up is scheduled at baseline, 1, 6, and 12 months after randomization. All clinical outcomes are recorded following the Valve Academic Research Consortium 2 criteria.

DISCUSSION

The QUALITY-AVR trial aims to test the hypothesis that ministernotomy improves quality of life, satisfaction and clinical outcomes in patients referred for isolated aortic valve replacement. Statistically significant differences favouring ministernotomy could modify the surgical "gold standard" for aortic stenosis surgery, and subsequently the need to change the control group in transcatheter aortic valve implantation trials. Recruitment started on 18 March 2016. In November 2017, 75 patients were enrolled.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT02726087 . Registered on 13 March 2016.

Advantages of Minimal Access Versus Conventional Aortic Valve Replacement in Elderly or Severely Obese Patients

OBJECTIVE

The aim of our study was to investigate potential clinical advantages of minimal access versus conventional surgical approach in older and severely obese patients undergoing isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR).

METHODS

One hundred thirty-five patients undergoing isolated primary AVR were enrolled. Propensity score matching was used to compare 42 selected patients operated on ministernotomy (MS, group B) with 42 selected patients operated on full sternotomy (FS, group A).

RESULTS

After propensity score matching, the two groups were comparable in terms of preoperative characteristics. Cardiopulmonary bypass time was significantly longer in MS group compared with the FS group [median (95% confidence level or CL), 103 (98.7-106.4) vs 94 (83.6-99) minutes, respectively; P = 0.0019]. No significant difference was observed in aortic cross-clamp time [median (95% CL), 73 (71.1-78.2) vs 69.5 (62.7-83) minutes; P = 0.4]. Significantly shorter ventilation time [median (95% CL), 13 (12-16.4) vs 24 (22-25) hours; P = 0.00018], intensive care unit stay [median (95% CL), 1 vs 2 days; P = 0.00017], and hospital stay [median (95% CL), 8.5 (8-10.8) vs 13.5 (11.1-14) days; P = 0.00030] were shown in the MS group. The age subgroup analysis showed that statistical significance for mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit, and hospital stay was specific for patients older than 75 years. The analysis of body mass index quartile showed that statistical significance for mechanical ventilation was specific for patients in the fourth quartile.

CONCLUSIONS

Minimal access AVR is a reproducible, safe, and effective surgical option in patients candidate for isolated AVR, and our study suggests a faster recovery when used in severely obese or older patients.

A Contemporary Approach to Reoperative Aortic Valve Surgery: When is Less, More?

OBJECTIVE

Although the benefits of minimally invasive valvular surgery are well established, the applicability of extending these techniques to reoperative aortic valve surgery is unknown. We evaluated our experience with a minimally invasive approach to this patient population.

METHODS

From January 2010 to September 2015, 21 patients underwent reoperative isolated aortic valve replacement via a minimally invasive approach by a single surgeon. All patients had preoperative evaluation with computerized tomography and coronary catheterization. Surgical approaches were right anterior thoracotomy (6/21) or upper hemisternotomy (15/21). Central aortic cannulation was preferred with femoral artery cannulation used in four patients (19%). In patients with left internal mammary artery (LIMA) grafts, no attempt to dissect or occlude the graft was made. Cold blood cardioplegia was administered antegrade (12/21) or retrograde (9/21); systemic cooling with a mean low temperature of 27.5 °C was employed.

RESULTS

Mean age was 75.1 years with a range from 33 to 92 years, and 67% (14/21) were male. All procedures were completed with a minimally invasive approach. Mean ± SD cross-clamp time was 51.5 ± 9.2 minutes. Fourteen patients had patent LIMA grafts. No aortic, LIMA, or cardiac injuries occurred. There were no hospital deaths nor occurrences of perioperative myocardial infarction, stroke, wound infection, renal failure, or endocarditis/sepsis. One patient required a reoperation for bleeding. Sixty-two percent of patients were discharged to home; mean ± SD length of stay was 6 ± 3 days.

CONCLUSIONS

With appropriate preoperative evaluation and careful surgical planning, a minimally invasive approach to reoperative aortic valve surgery can be performed in a safe and effective manner.

Limited versus full sternotomy for aortic valve replacement

BACKGROUND

Aortic valve disease is a common condition that is easily treatable with cardiac surgery. This is conventionally performed by opening the sternum longitudinally down the centre ("median sternotomy") and replacing the valve under cardiopulmonary bypass. Median sternotomy is generally well tolerated, but as less invasive options have become available, the efficacy of limited incisions has been called into question. In particular, the effects of reducing the visibility and surgical access has raised safety concerns with regards 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.

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, Embase, clinical trials registries, and manufacturers' websites from inception to July 2016, with no language limitations. We reviewed references of identified papers to identify any further studies of relevance.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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, trans-apical, trans-femoral 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. The quality of evidence was determined using the GRADE methodology and results of patient-relevant outcomes were summarised in a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

The review included seven trials with 511 participants. These included adults from centres in Austria, Spain, Italy, Germany, France, and Egypt. We performed 12 comparisons investigating the effects of minimally invasive limited upper hemi-sternotomy on aortic valve replacement as compared to surgery performed via full median sternotomy.There was no evidence of any effect of upper hemi-sternotomy on mortality versus full median sternotomy (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 2.82; participants = 511; studies = 7; moderate quality). There was no evidence of an increase in cardiopulmonary bypass time with aortic valve replacement performed via an upper hemi-sternotomy (mean difference (MD) 3.02 minutes, 95% CI -4.10 to 10.14; participants = 311; studies = 5; low quality). There was no evidence of an increase in aortic cross-clamp time (MD 0.95 minutes, 95% CI -3.45 to 5.35; participants = 391; studies = 6; low quality). None of the included studies reported major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events as a composite end point.There was no evidence of an effect on length of hospital stay through limited hemi-sternotomy (MD -1.31 days, 95% CI -2.63 to 0.01; participants = 297; studies = 5; I2 = 89%; very low quality). Postoperative blood loss was lower in the upper hemi-sternotomy group (MD -158.00 mL, 95% CI -303.24 to -12.76; participants = 297; studies = 5; moderate quality). The evidence did not support a reduction in deep sternal wound infections (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.22 to 2.30; participants = 511; studies = 7; moderate quality) or re-exploration (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.48 to 2.13; participants = 511; studies = 7; moderate quality). There was no change in pain scores by upper hemi-sternotomy (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.33, 95% CI -0.85 to 0.20; participants = 197; studies = 3; I2 = 70%; very low quality), but there was a small increase in postoperative pulmonary function tests with minimally invasive limited sternotomy (MD 1.98 % predicted FEV1, 95% CI 0.62 to 3.33; participants = 257; studies = 4; I2 = 28%; low quality). There was a small reduction in length of intensive care unit stays as a result of the minimally invasive upper hemi-sternotomy (MD -0.57 days, 95% CI -0.93 to -0.20; participants = 297; studies = 5; low quality). Postoperative atrial fibrillation was not reduced with minimally invasive aortic valve replacement through limited compared to full sternotomy (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.07 to 4.89; participants = 240; studies = 3; moderate quality), neither were postoperative ventilation times (MD -1.12 hours, 95% CI -3.43 to 1.19; participants = 297; studies = 5; low quality). None of the included studies reported cost analyses.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence in this review was assessed as generally low to moderate quality. The study sample sizes were small and underpowered to demonstrate differences in outcomes with low event rates. Clinical heterogeneity both between and within studies is a relatively fixed feature of surgical trials, and this also contributed to the need for caution in interpreting results.Considering these limitations, there was uncertainty of the effect on mortality or extracorporeal support times with upper hemi-sternotomy for aortic valve replacement compared to full median sternotomy. The evidence to support a reduction in total hospital length of stay or intensive care stay was low in quality. There was also uncertainty of any difference in the rates of other, secondary outcome measures or adverse events with minimally invasive limited sternotomy approaches to aortic valve replacement.There appears to be uncertainty between minimally invasive aortic valve replacement via upper hemi-sternotomy and conventional aortic valve replacement via a full median sternotomy. 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 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.

Pulmonary Complications After Cardiac Surgery

Over the past two decades there has been a steady evolution in the practice of adult cardiac surgery with the introduction of “off-pump” surgery. However, respiratory complications remain a leading cause of postcardiac surgical morbidity and can prolong hospital stays and increase costs. The high incidence of pulmonary complications is in part due to the disruption of normal ventilatory function that is inherent to surgery in the thoracic region. Furthermore, patients undergoing such surgery often have underlying illnesses such as intrinsic lung disease (e.g., chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) and pulmonary dysfunction secondary to cardiac disease (e.g., congestive heart failure) that increase their susceptibility to postoperative respiratory problems. Given that many patients undergoing cardiac surgery are thus susceptiple to pulmonary complications, it is remarkable that more patients do not suffer from them during and after cardiac surgery. This is to a large degree because of advances in anesthetic, surgical and critical care that, for example, have reduced the physiological insults of surgery (e.g., better myocardial preservation techniques) and streamlined care in the immediate postoperative period (e.g., early extubation). Moreover, the development of minimally invasive surgery and nonbypass techniques are further evidence of the attempts at reducing the homeostatic disruptions of cardiac surgery. This review examines the available information on the incidences, consequences, and treatments of postcardiac surgery respiratory complications.

Assessment Based on EuroSCORE of Ministernotomy for Aortic Valve Replacement

To assess the advantages of a ministernotomy over a standard sternotomy for aortic valve replacement, 191 patients were classified as low-, medium-, and high-risk by EuroSCORE. A ministernotomy was carried out in 100 patients, and a standard sternotomy was used in 91. Among low-risk patients, those who had a ministernotomy showed a marginal increase in atrial fibrillation. Of the medium-risk patients, those who had a sternotomy had significantly more atrial fibrillation and slightly more general infections. In the high-risk subgroup, significantly more atrial fibrillation was observed in the sternotomy group, and more neurologic events were observed in the ministernotomy group; the difference became nonsignificant when only severe events were considered. There was a significant benefit in terms of rhythm disturbances in medium- and high-risk patients who underwent a ministernotomy compared to those who had a full sternotomy. Mortality, duration of intensive care, and hospital stay were not influenced by the operative method.

Minimally Invasive Aortic Valve Replacement in Left Ventricular Dysfunction

The safety and benefit of minimally invasive aortic valve replacement in patients with left ventricular dysfunction has not been well investigated. We conducted a retrospective review of 140 patients with ejection fraction ≤ 40% who underwent isolated aortic valve replacement between July 1996 and March 2005. Aortic valve replacement was performed via an upper hemisternotomy in 73 patients and via a full sternotomy in 67. Two matched cohorts of 41 patients each were constructed using propensity score analysis, and the outcomes were compared. There was no significant difference in operative mortality (hemisternotomy, 2.4% vs 4.8% for full sternotomy), incidence of postoperative complications, blood transfusion requirement, length of hospital stay, or discharge to home rates. Aortic valve replacement via an upper hemisternotomy can be performed safely, even in patients with left ventricular dysfunction, with morbidity and mortality outcomes similar to those of a full sternotomy.

Minimal vs Median Sternotomy for Aortic Valve Replacement

The aim of this study was to compare postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement through a ministernotomy or conventional sternotomy. Sixty patients were randomized into 2 groups of 30 each: group 1 had a full sternotomy and group 2 had a ministernotomy. Pain was evaluated on a daily basis, pulmonary function tests were performed perioperatively. The skin incision was shorter in group 2 (7.17 vs 24.50 cm in group 1). There was significantly less mediastinal drainage in group 2 (233 vs 590 mL in 24 hours in group 1). Group 1 patients had more blood transfusions and longer ventilation time. In group 1, 96.7% experienced severe pain, whereas 93.3% in group 2 reported minimal pain. Hospital stay was 17.7 days in group 1 and 8.0 days in group 2. The ministernotomy had a cosmetic advantage, less blood loss and transfusion requirement, greater sternal stability, better respiratory function, and earlier extubation and hospital discharge.

Function of the Respiratory System in Elderly Patients After Aortic Valve Replacement

OBJECTIVE

To compare the function of the respiratory system after aortic valve replacement through median sternotomy (AVR) or the minimally invasive right anterior minithoracotomy (RAT-AVR) approach among elderly (aged≥75 years) patients.

DESIGN

Observational cohort study.

SETTINGS

University hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

The study included 65 elderly patients scheduled for RAT-AVR and 82 for standard AVR.

INTERVENTIONS

Pulmonary function tests (PFT) were performed preoperatively, 1 week, 1 month, and 3 months after surgery. In addition, respiratory complications were analyzed.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Respiratory complications occurred in 12.3% of patients in the RAT-AVR group and 18.3% of patients in the AVR group (p = 0.445). Mechanical ventilation time in the intensive care unit was 7.7±3.6 hours for RAT-AVR patients and 9.7±5.4 hours for AVR patients (p = 0.003). Most PFT were worse in the AVR group than in the RAT-AVR group when performed 1 week after surgery. After 1 month, forced expiratory volume in the first second, vital capacity, and total lung capacity differed significantly in favor of the RAT-AVR group (p = 0.002, p<0.001, and p = 0.001, respectively). After 3 months, the PFT parameters still had not returned to preoperative values, but the differences were no longer significant between the RAT-AVR and AVR groups. The multivariable median regression analysis demonstrated that RAT-AVR surgery was a key factor in a patient's higher postoperative PFT parameter values.

CONCLUSIONS

RAT-AVR surgery resulted in shorter postoperative mechanical ventilation time and improved the recovery of pulmonary function in elderly patients, but it did not reduce the incidence of pulmonary complications when compared with surgery performed through a median sternotomy.

Influence of body mass index on outcomes after minimal-access aortic valve replacement through a J-shaped partial upper sternotomy

Background

Minimal-access aortic valve replacement (MAAVR) may reduce post-operative blood loss and transfusion requirements, decrease post-operative pain, shorten length stay and enhance cosmesis. This may be particularly advantageous in overweight/obese patients, who are at increased risk of post-operative complications. Obese patients are however often denied MAAVR due to the perceived technical procedural difficulty. This retrospective analysis sought to determine the effect of BMI on post-operative outcomes in patients undergoing MAAVR.

Methods

Ninety isolated elective MAAVR procedures performed between May 2006–October 2013 were included. Intra- and post-operative data were prospectively collected. Ordinary least squares univariate linear regression analysis was performed to determine the effect of BMI as a continuous variable on post-operative outcomes. One-way ANOVA and Chi-squared testing was used to assess differences in outcomes between patients with BMI <25 (n = 36) and BMI ≥25 (n = 54) as appropriate.

Results

There was no peri-operative mortality, myocardial infarction or stroke. Univariate regression demonstrated longer cross-clamp times (p = 0.0218) and a trend towards increased bypass times (p = 0.0615) in patients with higher BMI. BMI ≥25 was associated with an increased incidence of hospital-acquired pneumonia (p = 0.020) and new-onset atrial fibrillation (p = 0.036) compared to BMI <25. However, raised BMI did not extend ICU (p = 0.3310) or overall hospital stay (p = 0.2614). Similar rates of sternal wound complications, inotrope requirements and renal dysfunction were observed in both normal- and overweight/obese-BMI groups. Furthermore, increasing BMI correlated with reduced mechanical ventilation time (p = 0.039) and early post-operative blood loss (p = 0.004).

Conclusions

Our results demonstrate that within the range of this study, MAAVR is a safe, reproducible and effective procedure, affording equivalent clinical outcomes in both overweight/obese and normal-weight patients considered for an isolated first-time AVR, with low post-operative morbidity and mortality. MAAVR should therefore be considered as an alternative surgical strategy to reduce obesity-related complications in patients requiring aortic valve replacement.

Advances in the management of severe aortic stenosis

BACKGROUND

Recent developments in the management of severe aortic stenosis have resulted in a paradigm shift in the way we view the condition. Patients previously denied intervention in the form of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) are now candidates for transcatheter aortic valve implantation and the risk and age profiles of those undergoing SAVR are rising with the ageing population. This review article is designed to provide an overview of developments in the surgical management of severe aortic stenosis. We also discuss the expanding role of minimally invasive surgical approaches to outline the current techniques available to treat patients with severe aortic stenosis.

METHODS

PubMed was searched using the terms 'severe aortic stenosis', 'surgical aortic valve replacement', 'transcatheter aortic valve replacement', 'mechanical aortic valve replacement' and 'sutureless aortic valve replacement'. Selection of articles was based on peer review, journal and relevance. Where possible articles from high-impact factor peer review journals were included.

RESULTS

Minimally invasive operative approaches include mini-sternotomy and mini-thoracotomy. Sutureless aortic prostheses reduce aortic cross-clamp time and cardiopulmonary bypass time; however, long-term follow-up data are unavailable at this time. Mechanical prostheses are advised for those under 60.

CONCLUSION

Multiple advances in the surgical management of aortic stenosis have occured in the past decade. An evolving spectrum of surgical and transcatheter interventions is now available depending on patient age and operative risk.

Minimally Invasive Aortic Valve Replacement

With the advent of transcatheter aortic valve replacement and the emergence of rapid deployment aortic valves, there is a resurgent interest in minimizing the trauma of surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR). The present review summarizes the history of minimal access AVR and attempts to collate the existing evidence regarding minimal access AVR.

Minimal invasive implantation of an EDWARDS INTUITY rapid deployment aortic valve

The development of rapid deployment and sutureless aortic valves represents a translation of knowledge gained from the performance of transcutaneous aortic valve replacement (AVR) procedures combined with decades of experience of conventional AVR surgery. Such devices have gained increasing clinical acceptance-particularly in Europe-with almost 3000 total implants to date. Rapid deployment and sutureless valves facilitate minimal invasive AVR and are associated with significantly reduced myocardial ischaemic and cardiopulmonary bypass times. The reduced ischaemic times may also be important for patients requiring complex combined procedures, or those with poor left ventricular function. These devices are associated with excellent haemodynamic performance and acceptable rates of pacemaker implantation and paravalvular leak. The current case involves a minimal invasive implantation of an EDWARDS INTUITY rapid deployment valve (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA).

Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement: 12-year single center experience

BACKGROUND

This study reports the single center experience on minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MIAVR), performed through a right anterior minithoracotomy or ministernotomy (MS).

METHODS

Eight hundred and fifty-three patients, who underwent MIAVR from 2002 to 2014, were retrospectively analyzed. Survival was evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The Cox multivariable proportional hazards regression model was developed to identify independent predictors of follow-up mortality.

RESULTS

Median age was 73.8, and 405 (47.5%) of patients were female. The overall 30-day mortality was 1.9%. Four hundred and forty-three (51.9%) and 368 (43.1%) patients received biological and sutureless prostheses, respectively. Median cardiopulmonary bypass time and aortic cross-clamping time were 108 and 75 minutes, respectively. Nineteen (2.2%) cases required conversion to full median sternotomy. Thirty-seven (4.3%) patients required re-exploration for bleeding. Perioperative stroke occurred in 15 (1.8%) patients, while transient ischemic attack occurred postoperative in 11 (1.3%). New onset atrial fibrillation was reported for 243 (28.5%) patients. After a median follow-up of 29.1 months (2,676.0 patient-years), survival rates at 1 and 5 years were 96%±1% and 80%±3%, respectively. Cox multivariable analysis showed that advanced age, history of cardiac arrhythmia, preoperative chronic renal failure, MS approach, prolonged mechanical ventilation and hospital stay as well as wound revision were associated with higher mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

MIAVR via both approaches is safe and feasible with excellent outcomes, and is associated with low conversion rate and low perioperative morbidity. Long term survival is at least comparable to that reported for conventional sternotomy AVR.

Conventional versus minimally invasive aortic valve replacement: pooled analysis of propensity-matched data

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (mAVR) is increasingly preferred over conventional AVR (cAVR). However, data comparing these procedures present conflicting results. Hence, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing clinical results in these cohorts.

METHOD

Only randomized controlled trials (RCT) and propensity-matched observational studies (POS) (1998-2013) comparing clinical outcome of patients subjected to mAVR or cAVR were pooled. Continuous data was compared using mean/standardized mean difference (MD/SMD) while categorical results were pooled to obtain an odds ratio (OR) with a 95% confidence interval.

RESULTS

A total of 18 studies (6 RCT and 12 POS) (1973 mAVR patients; 2697 cAVR patients) were analyzed. The mean ischemic time was significantly longer with mAVR (MD 9.42 minutes [4.25-14.59]; p < 0.01). However, early mortality (mAVR [1.8%] and cAVR [3%]) was comparable (OR 0.70 [0.46-1.06]; p = 0.09). Postoperative ventilation time was slightly shorter after mAVR (7.5 vs 11.1 hours; p = 0.07), and hospital discharge was earlier after mAVR (MD -1.05 [-1.64 to -0.46]; p < 0.01). However, mAVR failed to reduce transfusion requirement (OR 0.77 [0.51-1.14]; p = 0.19) or pain scores (SMD -0.25 [-0.65 to 0.13]; p = 0.20). Postoperative atrial fibrillation (p = 0.67) and stroke (p = 0.79) rates were comparable. Pooled rate of conversion to full sternotomy was 2.5%. Cosmetic satisfaction could not be pooled due to reporting heterogeneity.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement can be performed safely despite the longer ischemic time. While minimally invasive surgery does demonstrate some advantages in postoperative recovery, we failed to find any other substantial improvement in outcome over conventional aortic valve replacement.