Renata Tosoni Rodrigues Ferreira1, Roberto Rocha e Silva2, Evaldo Marchi3. 1. Faculdade de Medicina de Jundiaí (FMJ), Jundiaí, SP, Brazil and Pitangueiras Hospital, Jundiaí, SP, Brazil. 2. Pitangueiras Hospital, Jundiaí, SP, Brazil; Hospital Paulo Sacramento, Jundiaí, SP, Brazil and Instituto do Coração do Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo (InCor-HCFMUSP), São Paulo, SP, Brazil. 3. Faculdade de Medicina de Jundiaí (FMJ), Jundiaí, SP, Brazil.
Abstract
Objective: To compare the results of aortic valve replacement with access by sternotomy or minimally invasive approach. Methods: Retrospective analysis of medical records of 37 patients undergoing aortic valve replacement by sternotomy or minimally invasive approach, with emphasis on the comparison of time of cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic clamping, volume of surgical bleeding, time of mechanical ventilation, need for blood transfusion, incidence of atrial fibrillation, length of stay in intensive care unit, time of hospital discharge, short-term mortality and presence of surgical wound infection. Results: Sternotomy was used in 22 patients and minimally invasive surgery in 15 patients. The minimally invasive approach had significantly higher time values of cardiopulmonary bypass (114.3±23.9 versus 86.7±19.8min.; P=0.003), aortic clamping (87.4±19.2 versus 61.4±12.9 min.; P<0.001) and mechanical ventilation (287.3±138.9 versus 153.9±118.6 min.; P=0.003). No difference was found in outcomes surgical bleeding volume, need for blood transfusion, incidence of atrial fibrillation, length of stay in intensive care unit and time of hospital discharge. No cases of short-term mortality or surgical wound infection were documented. Conclusion: The less invasive approach presented with longer times of cardiopulmonary bypass, aortic clamping and mechanical ventilation than sternotomy, however without prejudice to the length of stay in intensive care unit, time of hospital discharge and morbidity.
Objective: To compare the results of aortic valve replacement with access by sternotomy or minimally invasive approach. Methods: Retrospective analysis of medical records of 37 patients undergoing aortic valve replacement by sternotomy or minimally invasive approach, with emphasis on the comparison of time of cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic clamping, volume of surgical bleeding, time of mechanical ventilation, need for blood transfusion, incidence of atrial fibrillation, length of stay in intensive care unit, time of hospital discharge, short-term mortality and presence of surgical wound infection. Results: Sternotomy was used in 22 patients and minimally invasive surgery in 15 patients. The minimally invasive approach had significantly higher time values of cardiopulmonary bypass (114.3±23.9 versus 86.7±19.8min.; P=0.003), aortic clamping (87.4±19.2 versus 61.4±12.9 min.; P<0.001) and mechanical ventilation (287.3±138.9 versus 153.9±118.6 min.; P=0.003). No difference was found in outcomes surgical bleeding volume, need for blood transfusion, incidence of atrial fibrillation, length of stay in intensive care unit and time of hospital discharge. No cases of short-term mortality or surgical wound infection were documented. Conclusion: The less invasive approach presented with longer times of cardiopulmonary bypass, aortic clamping and mechanical ventilation than sternotomy, however without prejudice to the length of stay in intensive care unit, time of hospital discharge and morbidity.
Authors: Ju Y Lim; Salil V Deo; Salah E Altarabsheh; Sung H Jung; Patricia J Erwin; Alan H Markowitz; Soon J Park Journal: J Card Surg Date: 2014-12-22 Impact factor: 1.620
Authors: Denis R Merk; Sven Lehmann; David M Holzhey; Pascal Dohmen; Pascal Candolfi; Martin Misfeld; Friedrich W Mohr; Michael A Borger Journal: Eur J Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2014-03-05 Impact factor: 4.191
Authors: Nobuyuki Furukawa; Oliver Kuss; Anas Aboud; Michael Schönbrodt; Andre Renner; Kavous Hakim Meibodi; Tobias Becker; Amin Zittermann; Jan F Gummert; Jochen Börgermann Journal: Eur J Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2014-01-20 Impact factor: 4.191
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: Marija Bozhinovska; Matej Jenko; Gordana Taleska Stupica; Tomislav Klokočovnik; Juš Kšela; Matija Jelenc; Matej Podbregar; Andrej Fabjan; Maja Šoštarič Journal: J Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2021-05-24 Impact factor: 1.637
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