Literature DB >> 25694975

Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement versus aortic valve replacement through full sternotomy: the Brigham and Women's Hospital experience.

Robert C Neely1, Marko T Boskovski1, Igor Gosev1, Tsuyoshi Kaneko1, Siobhan McGurk1, Marzia Leacche1, Lawrence H Cohn1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive aortic valve surgery (mini AVR) is a safe and effective treatment option at many hospital centers, but there has not been widespread adoption of the procedure. Critics of mini AVR have called for additional evidence with direct comparison to aortic valve replacement (AVR) via full sternotomy (FS).
METHODS: Our mini AVR approach is through a hemi-sternotomy (HS). We performed a propensity-score matched analysis of all patients undergoing isolated AVR via FS or HS at our institution since 2002, resulting in 552 matched pairs. Baseline characteristics were similar. Operative characteristics, transfusion rates, in-hospital outcomes as well as short and long term survival were compared between groups.
RESULTS: Median cardiopulmonary bypass and cross clamp times were shorter in the HS group: 106 minutes [inter-quartile ranges (IQR) 87-135] vs. 124 minutes (IQR 90-169), P≤0.001, and 76 minutes (IQR 63-97) vs. 80 minutes (IQR 62-114), P≤0.005, respectively. HS patients had shorter ventilation times (median 5.7 hours, IQR 3.5-10.3 vs. 6.3 hours, IQR 3.9-11.2, P≤0.022), shorter intensive care unit stay (median 42 hours, IQR 24-71 vs. 45 hours, IQR 24-87, P≤0.039), and shorter hospital length of stay (median 6 days, IQR 5-8 vs. 7 days, IQR 5-10, P≤0.001) compared with the FS group. Intraoperative transfusions were more common in FS group: 27.9% vs. 20.0%, P≤0.003. No differences were seen in short or long term survival, or time to aortic valve re-intervention.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study confirms the clinical benefits of minimally invasive AVR via HS, which includes decreased transfusion requirements, ventilation times, intensive care unit and hospital length of stay without compromising short and long term survival compared to conventional AVR via FS.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (mini AVR); aortic valve replacement (AVR); full sternotomy (FS); hemi-sternotomy (HS); minimally invasive

Year:  2015        PMID: 25694975      PMCID: PMC4311157          DOI: 10.3978/j.issn.2225-319X.2014.08.13

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Cardiothorac Surg        ISSN: 2225-319X


  28 in total

1.  Reoperative aortic valve replacement: partial upper hemisternotomy versus conventional full sternotomy.

Authors:  J G Byrne; S F Aranki; G S Couper; D H Adams; E N Allred; L H Cohn
Journal:  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 5.209

2.  One thousand minimally invasive valve operations: early and late results.

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

3.  Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement in octogenarian, high-risk, transcatheter aortic valve implantation candidates.

Authors:  Andrew W ElBardissi; Prem Shekar; Gregory S Couper; Lawrence H Cohn
Journal:  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2010-11-03       Impact factor: 5.209

4.  Minimally invasive approach for aortic valve operations.

Authors:  D M Cosgrove; J F Sabik
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  1996-08       Impact factor: 4.330

5.  Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (AVR) compared to standard AVR.

Authors:  J Liu; A Sidiropoulos; W Konertz
Journal:  Eur J Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 4.191

6.  Chest pain after partial upper versus complete sternotomy for aortic valve surgery.

Authors:  Sofie Candaele; Paul Herijgers; Roland Demeyere; Willem Flameng; Georges Evers
Journal:  Acta Cardiol       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 1.718

7.  Minimally invasive versus conventional aortic valve operations: a prospective study in 120 patients.

Authors:  H E Mächler; P Bergmann; M Anelli-Monti; D Dacar; P Rehak; I Knez; L Salaymeh; E Mahla; B Rigler
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 4.330

8.  Minimally invasive cardiac valve surgery improves patient satisfaction while reducing costs of cardiac valve replacement and repair.

Authors:  L H Cohn; D H Adams; G S Couper; D P Bichell; D M Rosborough; S P Sears; S F Aranki
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  1997-10       Impact factor: 12.969

9.  Right anterior minithoracotomy versus conventional aortic valve replacement: a propensity score matched study.

Authors:  Mattia Glauber; Antonio Miceli; Daniyar Gilmanov; Matteo Ferrarini; Stefano Bevilacqua; Pier A Farneti; Marco Solinas
Journal:  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2012-04-18       Impact factor: 5.209

10.  Minimally invasive and conventional aortic valve replacement: a propensity score analysis.

Authors:  Daniyar Gilmanov; Stefano Bevilacqua; Michele Murzi; Alfredo G Cerillo; Tommaso Gasbarri; Enkel Kallushi; Antonio Miceli; Mattia Glauber
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2013-07-16       Impact factor: 4.330

View more
  7 in total

Review 1.  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

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

Authors:  Kei Woldendorp; Mathew P Doyle; Paul G Bannon; Martin Misfeld; Tristan D Yan; Giuseppe Santarpino; Paolo Berretta; Marco Di Eusanio; Bart Meuris; Alfredo Giuseppe Cerillo; Pierluigi Stefàno; Niccolò Marchionni; Jacqueline K Olive; Tom C Nguyen; Marco Solinas; Giacomo Bianchi
Journal:  Ann Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2020-09

3.  Alternative peripheral perfusion strategies for safe cardiopulmonary bypass in atrial septal defect closure via a right minithoracotomy approach.

Authors:  Hiroto Kitahara; Kazuma Okamoto; Mikihiko Kudo; Akihiro Yoshitake; Takahito Ito; Kanako Hayashi; Yu Inaba; Yuta Akamatsu; Hideyuki Shimizu
Journal:  Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2015-12-08

Review 4.  Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement in high risk patient groups.

Authors:  Daniel Fudulu; Harriet Lewis; Umberto Benedetto; Massimo Caputo; Gianni Angelini; Hunaid A Vohra
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2017-06       Impact factor: 2.895

Review 5.  Recent advances in aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis.

Authors:  Ahmed Al-Adhami; Nawwar Al-Attar
Journal:  F1000Res       Date:  2016-10-20

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

Authors:  Tyler W Wilson; Joshua J Horns; Vikas Sharma; Matthew L Goodwin; Hiroshi Kagawa; Sara J Pereira; Stephen H McKellar; Craig H Selzman; Jason P Glotzbach
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-01-22       Impact factor: 4.241

7.  Efficacy of Aortic Valve Replacement through Full Sternotomy and Minimal Invasion (Ministernotomy).

Authors:  Hammad M A Aliahmed; Rimantas Karalius; Arūnas Valaika; Arimantas Grebelis; Palmyra Semėnienė; Rasa Čypienė
Journal:  Medicina (Kaunas)       Date:  2018-04-28       Impact factor: 2.430

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.