Literature DB >> 20609763

Aortic valve replacement surgery: comparison of outcomes in matched sternotomy and PORT ACCESS groups.

William T Brinkman1, William Hoffman, Todd M Dewey, Dan Culica, Syma L Prince, Morley A Herbert, Michael J Mack, William H Ryan.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In the past decade, minimally invasive approaches have been developed for aortic valve surgery. We reviewed our data to determine if the use of the PORT ACCESS technique has improved hospital morbidity and mortality.
METHODS: Data were collected on 90 patients who had a replacement of their aortic valve using PORT ACCESS procedures (PORT ACCESS aortic valve replacement [PAVR]). This group was then matched 1:4 to a control group having aortic valve replacement surgery using a standard sternotomy approach.
RESULTS: The two groups had no statistically significant differences in preoperative risk factors. The perioperative and 30-day outcomes from the matched AVR and PAVR groups showed no mortalities in the PAVR group and 3.1% in the AVR group. Mean length of stay was shorter for PAVR patients (7.2 +/- 5.0 days; median 6 days) compared with the mean stay in the sternotomy group (8.5 +/- 9.5 days; median 6 days), PAVR patients also had statistically significant shorter intensive care unit stays, and time on ventilator. The number of patients needing ventilator support postoperatively was significantly lower in the PORT ACCESS group. Cross-clamp and perfusion times were longer in the PAVR group. No other morbidity was significantly different between groups, except for postoperative tamponade (higher in PAVR group).
CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis of matched patients, the patients having aortic valve replacement using PORT ACCESS procedures, spent a shorter time in the intensive care unit and had less need for postoperative ventilator usage (both number of patients using a ventilator and the mean time of use) in comparison with patients undergoing conventional sternotomy. Copyright 2010 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20609763     DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2010.03.055

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg        ISSN: 0003-4975            Impact factor:   4.330


  17 in total

1.  Minimally invasive aortic valve surgery: Cleveland Clinic experience.

Authors:  Douglas R Johnston; Eric E Roselli
Journal:  Ann Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2015-03

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

Authors:  Daniyar Gilmanov; Marco Solinas; Pier Andrea Farneti; Alfredo Giuseppe Cerillo; Enkel Kallushi; Filippo Santarelli; Mattia Glauber
Journal:  Ann Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2015-03

3.  Minimally Invasive Versus Full-Sternotomy Septal Myectomy for Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy.

Authors:  Farah N Musharbash; Matthew R Schill; Vivek H Hansalia; Richard B Schuessler; Jeremy E Leidenfrost; Spencer J Melby; Ralph J Damiano
Journal:  Innovations (Phila)       Date:  2018 Jul/Aug

4.  Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement provides equivalent outcomes at reduced cost compared with conventional aortic valve replacement: A real-world multi-institutional analysis.

Authors:  Ravi K Ghanta; Damien J Lapar; John A Kern; Irving L Kron; Alan M Speir; Edwin Fonner; Mohammed Quader; Gorav Ailawadi
Journal:  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2015-01-12       Impact factor: 5.209

Review 5.  The Opportunities and Limitations of Minimally Invasive Cardiac Surgery.

Authors:  Torsten Doenst; Mahmoud Diab; Christoph Sponholz; Michael Bauer; Gloria Färber
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2017-11-17       Impact factor: 5.594

Review 6.  The golden age of minimally invasive cardiothoracic surgery: current and future perspectives.

Authors:  Alexander Iribarne; Rachel Easterwood; Edward Y H Chan; Jonathan Yang; Lori Soni; Mark J Russo; Craig R Smith; Michael Argenziano
Journal:  Future Cardiol       Date:  2011-05

Review 7.  Minimally invasive valve surgery.

Authors:  Nicolas H Pope; Gorav Ailawadi
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Transl Res       Date:  2014-05-06       Impact factor: 4.132

8.  A comparison of aortic valve replacement via an anterior right minithoracotomy with standard sternotomy: a propensity score analysis of 492 patients.

Authors:  Michael E Bowdish; Dawn S Hui; John D Cleveland; Wendy J Mack; Raina Sinha; Rupesh Ranjan; Robbin G Cohen; Craig J Baker; Mark J Cunningham; Mark L Barr; Vaughn A Starnes
Journal:  Eur J Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2015-03-06       Impact factor: 4.191

Review 9.  Minimally Invasive Cardiovascular Surgery: Incisions and Approaches.

Authors:  Nathaniel B Langer; Michael Argenziano
Journal:  Methodist Debakey Cardiovasc J       Date:  2016 Jan-Mar

10.  Evaluation of Aortic Valve Replacement via the Right Parasternal Approach without Rib Removal.

Authors:  Akimasa Morisaki; Koji Hattori; Yasuyuki Kato; Manabu Motoki; Yosuke Takahashi; Shinsuke Nishimura; Toshihiko Shibata
Journal:  Ann Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2014-08-29       Impact factor: 1.520

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.