Kevin Phan1, Jessie J Zhou1, Nithya Niranjan1, Marco Di Eusanio1, Tristan D Yan1. 1. 1 The Collaborative Research (CORE) Group, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia ; 2 Westmead Hospital, Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia ; 3 Cardiovascular Surgery Department, Sant'Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, Bologna University, Bologna, Italy ; 4 Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With prolonged life expectancy and more frequent use of biological prostheses, an increasingly higher proportion of patients are undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR) after previous sternotomy. We critically appraised the quantity and quality of evidence to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of the minimally invasive (MIrAVR) versus conventional (CrAVR) approaches for reoperative AVR. METHODS: Electronic searches were performed using six databases from their inception to April 2014. Relevant studies utilizing a MIrAVR were identified. Data were extracted and analyzed according to predefined clinical endpoints. RESULTS: Four single-arm and seven comparative observational studies including a total of 441 MIrAVR patients were included for quality assessment, data extraction and analysis. In-hospital mortality ranged from 0-9.5%, and was similar between the MIrAVR and CrAVR groups (RR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.39-1.54; P=0.46). Stroke rates ranged from 2.6-8% and were also similar between the two cohorts. The rates of pacemaker implantation, renal failure and reoperation for bleeding were not significantly different between the two groups. There were no reports of myocardial infarctions in the included studies. No significant difference in hospital stay was observed for the MIrAVR versus CrAVR group. CONCLUSIONS: The current literature suggests that MIrAVR has similar efficacy and mortality outcomes compared to CrAVR without compromise to myocardial protection or hospitalization duration. It appears to be a valid alternative option for patients requiring reoperative AVR.
BACKGROUND: With prolonged life expectancy and more frequent use of biological prostheses, an increasingly higher proportion of patients are undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR) after previous sternotomy. We critically appraised the quantity and quality of evidence to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of the minimally invasive (MIrAVR) versus conventional (CrAVR) approaches for reoperative AVR. METHODS: Electronic searches were performed using six databases from their inception to April 2014. Relevant studies utilizing a MIrAVR were identified. Data were extracted and analyzed according to predefined clinical endpoints. RESULTS: Four single-arm and seven comparative observational studies including a total of 441 MIrAVR patients were included for quality assessment, data extraction and analysis. In-hospital mortality ranged from 0-9.5%, and was similar between the MIrAVR and CrAVR groups (RR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.39-1.54; P=0.46). Stroke rates ranged from 2.6-8% and were also similar between the two cohorts. The rates of pacemaker implantation, renal failure and reoperation for bleeding were not significantly different between the two groups. There were no reports of myocardial infarctions in the included studies. No significant difference in hospital stay was observed for the MIrAVR versus CrAVR group. CONCLUSIONS: The current literature suggests that MIrAVR has similar efficacy and mortality outcomes compared to CrAVR without compromise to myocardial protection or hospitalization duration. It appears to be a valid alternative option for patients requiring reoperative AVR.
Authors: Tomislav Mihaljevic; Lawrence H Cohn; Daniel Unic; Sary F Aranki; Gregory S Couper; John G Byrne Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Ingo Breitenbach; Gerhard Wimmer-Greinecker; Leo A Bockeria; Jerzy Sadowski; Christoph Schmitz; Boguslaw Kapelak; Krzysztof Bartus; Ravil Muratov; Wolfgang Harringer Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2010-08-02 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Roberto Gaeta; Salvatore Lentini; Giuseppe Raffa; Carlo Pellegrini; Giuseppe Zattera; Mario Viganò Journal: Ann Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 1.520
Authors: Pasquale Totaro; Simone Carlini; Matteo Pozzi; Francesco Pagani; Giuseppe Zattera; Andrea Maria D'Armini; Mario Vigano Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: James M Brown; Sean M O'Brien; Changfu Wu; Jo Ann H Sikora; Bartley P Griffith; James S Gammie Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Manjula Maganti; Vivek Rao; Susan Armstrong; Christopher M Feindel; Hugh E Scully; Tirone E David Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2009-02 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Kevin Phan; Dong-Fang Zhao; Nelson Wang; Ya Ruth Huo; Marco Di Eusanio; Tristan D Yan Journal: J Thorac Dis Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 2.895
Authors: Marco Di Eusanio; Kevin Phan; Denis Bouchard; Thierry P Carrel; Otto E Dapunt; Roberto Di Bartolomeo; Harald C Eichstaedt; Theodor Fischlein; Thierry Folliguet; Borut Gersak; Mattia Glauber; Axel Haverich; Martin Misfeld; Peter J Oberwalder; Giuseppe Santarpino; Malakh Lal Shrestha; Marco Solinas; Marco Vola; Francesco Alamanni; Alberto Albertini; Gopal Bhatnagar; Michel Carrier; Stephen Clark; Federic Collart; Utz Kappert; Alfred Kocher; Bart Meuris; Carmelo Mignosa; Ahmed Ouda; Marc Pelletier; Parwis Baradaran Rahmanian; David Reineke; Kevin Teoh; Giovanni Troise; Emmanuel Villa; Thorsten Wahlers; Tristan D Yan Journal: Ann Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2015-03