Literature DB >> 24446478

Ministernotomy versus conventional sternotomy for aortic valve replacement: matched propensity score analysis of 808 patients.

Nobuyuki Furukawa1, Oliver Kuss2, Anas Aboud3, Michael Schönbrodt3, Andre Renner3, Kavous Hakim Meibodi3, Tobias Becker3, Amin Zittermann3, Jan F Gummert3, Jochen Börgermann3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The proportion of minimally invasive approaches is rising in cardiac surgery, in part driven by increasing patient demand. This study aimed to perform a risk-adjusted comparison of mortality, rate of stroke and perioperative morbidity of aortic valve replacement (AVR) conducted through either partial mini-sternotomy or conventional sternotomy.
METHODS: Between July 2009 and July 2012, data from 984 consecutive patients undergoing isolated AVR were prospectively recorded. In 44.3% (n = 436), the less invasive partial mini-sternotomy was used. Propensity score matching was performed based on 15 preoperative risk factors to correct for selection bias. In-hospital mortality, stroke rate as well as other major complications in the minimally invasive group and conventional sternotomy group were compared in 404 matched patient pairs (total 808).
RESULTS: In-hospital mortality and rate of postoperative intra-aortic balloon pump use were identical for propensity-matched patients, 1.0% (4 in each group). The rate of stroke [OR (95% confidence interval (CI)): 0.80 (0.22-2.98)], perioperative myocardial infarction [OR (95% CI): 2.00 (0.18-22.06)], low-output syndrome [OR (95% CI): 0.90 (0.37-2.22)], new onset of dialysis [OR (95% CI): 1.25 (0.49-3.17)] and re-exploration for bleeding [OR (95% CI): 0.88 (0.50-1.56)] were similar. Likewise, resource utilization (operation time, duration of stay in the intensive care unit and in-hospital stay) and valve selection (type and size) was not affected by the surgical approach either.
CONCLUSIONS: AVR can be safely conducted through a partial mini-sternotomy. This approach is not associated with an increased rate of complications. However, wide CIs reflect the still prevailing statistical uncertainty in estimates, not excluding patient-relevant differences between approaches. Large trials, which also address end points, such as postoperative pain, duration of postoperative recovery and quality of life, are needed to clarify the role of minimally invasive AVR.
© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Aortic valve replacement; Minimally invasive cardiac surgery; Propensity score analysis

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24446478     DOI: 10.1093/ejcts/ezt616

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Cardiothorac Surg        ISSN: 1010-7940            Impact factor:   4.191


  14 in total

1.  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

Review 2.  Aortic valve repair in adult congenital heart disease.

Authors:  Evaldas Girdauskas; Johannes Petersen; Jörg Sachweh; Rainer Kozlik-Feldmann; Christoph Sinning; Carsten Rickers; Yskert von Kodolitsch; Hermann Reichenspurner
Journal:  Cardiovasc Diagn Ther       Date:  2018-12

Review 3.  Ministernotomy or minithoracotomy for minimally invasive aortic valve replacement: a Bayesian network meta-analysis.

Authors:  Kevin Phan; Ashleigh Xie; Yi-Chin Tsai; Deborah Black; Marco Di Eusanio; Tristan D Yan
Journal:  Ann Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2015-01

4.  Aortic Valve Replacement: Treatment by Sternotomy versus Minimally Invasive Approach.

Authors:  Renata Tosoni Rodrigues Ferreira; Roberto Rocha e Silva; Evaldo Marchi
Journal:  Braz J Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2016 Nov-Dec

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

6.  Surgical Approaches to Aortic Valve Replacement and Repair-Insights and Challenges.

Authors:  Basel Ramlawi; Mahesh Ramchandani; Michael J Reardon
Journal:  Interv Cardiol       Date:  2014-03

7.  Anatomical circumstances and aortic cross-clamp time in minimally invasive aortic valve replacement.

Authors:  Jure Jug; Zdravko Štor; Borut Geršak
Journal:  Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg       Date:  2021-01-22

8.  Initial Experience with Aortic Valve Replacement via a Minimally Invasive Approach: A Comparison of Stented, Stentless and Sutureless Valves.

Authors:  Johanna Konertz; Konstantin Zhigalov; Alexander Weymann; Pascal M Dohmen
Journal:  Med Sci Monit       Date:  2017-04-05

9.  Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement - pros and cons of keyhole aortic surgery.

Authors:  Marcin Kaczmarczyk; Przemysław Szałański; Michał Zembala; Krzysztof Filipiak; Wojciech Karolak; Jacek Wojarski; Marcin Garbacz; Aleksandra Kaczmarczyk; Anna Kwiecień; Marian Zembala
Journal:  Kardiochir Torakochirurgia Pol       Date:  2015-06-30

10.  Innominate vein repair after iatrogenic perforation with central venous catheter via mini-sternotomy-Case report.

Authors:  Juan A Siordia; Georganne R Ayers; Amanda Garlish; Sreekumar Subramanian
Journal:  Int J Surg Case Rep       Date:  2015-03-18
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.