Literature DB >> 30075959

Mini-Stern Trial: A randomized trial comparing mini-sternotomy to full median sternotomy for aortic valve replacement.

Sukumaran K Nair1, Catherine D Sudarshan2, Benjamin S Thorpe3, Jeshika Singh4, Thasee Pillay5, Pedro Catarino2, Kamen Valchanov2, Massimiliano Codispoti2, John Dunning2, Yasir Abu-Omar2, Narain Moorjani2, Claire Matthews2, Carol J Freeman2, Julia A Fox-Rushby4, Linda D Sharples6.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Aortic valve replacement (AVR) can be performed either through full median sternotomy (FS) or upper mini-sternotomy (MS). The Mini-Stern trial aimed to establish whether MS leads to quicker postoperative recovery and shorter hospital stay after first-time isolated AVR.
METHODS: This pragmatic, open-label, parallel randomized controlled trial (RCT) compared MS with FS for first-time isolated AVR in 2 United Kingdom National Health Service hospitals. Primary endpoints were duration of postoperative hospital stay and the time to fitness for discharge from hospital after AVR, analyzed in the intent-to-treat population.
RESULTS: In this RCT, 222 patients were recruited and randomized (n = 118 in the MS group; n = 104 in the FS group). Compared with the FS group, the MS group had a longer hospital length of stay (mean, 9.5 days vs 8.6 days) and took longer to achieve fitness for discharge home (mean, 8.5 days vs 7.5 days). Adjusting for valve type, sex, and surgeon, hazard ratios (HRs) from Cox models did not show a statistically significant effect of MS (relative to FS) on either hospital stay (HR, 0.874; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.668-1.143; P = .3246) or time to fitness for discharge (HR, 0.907; 95% CI, 0.688-1.197; P value = .4914). During a mean follow-up of 760 days (745 days for the MS group and 777 days for the FS group), 12 patients (10%) in the MS group and 7 patients (7%) in the FS group died (HR, 1.871; 95% CI, 0.723-4.844; P = .1966). Average extra cost for MS was £1714 during the first 12 months after AVR.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared with FS for AVR, MS did not result in shorter hospital stay, faster recovery, or improved survival and was not cost-effective. The MS approach is not superior to FS for performing AVR.
Copyright © 2018 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  aortic valve replacement; health economics; minimal access

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30075959     DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2018.05.057

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg        ISSN: 0022-5223            Impact factor:   5.209


  9 in total

Review 1.  Cardiac surgery 2018 reviewed.

Authors:  Torsten Doenst; Steffen Bargenda; Hristo Kirov; Alexandros Moschovas; Sophie Tkebuchava; Rauf Safarov; Mahmoud Diab; Gloria Faerber
Journal:  Clin Res Cardiol       Date:  2019-03-30       Impact factor: 5.460

2.  Minimal invasive aortic valve replacement: associations of radiological assessments with procedure complexity.

Authors:  Bruce R Boti; Vikash G Hindori; Emilio L Schade; Athina M Kougioumtzoglou; Eva C Verbeek; Annet Driessen-Waaijer; Riccardo Cocchieri; Bas A J M de Mol; Nils R Planken; Abdullah Kaya; Henk A Marquering
Journal:  J Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2019-10-12       Impact factor: 1.637

Review 3.  Recent advances in aortic valve replacement.

Authors:  Cristiano Spadaccio; Khalid Alkhamees; Nawwar Al-Attar
Journal:  F1000Res       Date:  2019-07-22

4.  Comparing quality of life and postoperative pain after limited access and conventional aortic valve replacement: Design and rationale of the LImited access aortic valve replacement (LIAR) trial.

Authors:  Idserd D G Klop; Bart P van Putte; Geoffrey T L Kloppenburg; Mirjam A G Sprangers; Pythia T Nieuwkerk; Patrick Klein
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials Commun       Date:  2021-01-12

Review 5.  Anesthesia for minimally invasive cardiac surgery.

Authors:  Alexander White; Chinmay Patvardhan; Florian Falter
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2021-03       Impact factor: 2.895

6.  Converging rapid deployment prostheses with minimal access surgery: analysis of early outcomes.

Authors:  M Yousuf Salmasi; Kristo Papa; David Mozalbat; Muhammad Ashraf; Alicja Zientara; Ishaan Chauhan; Nikoleta Karadatkou; Thanos Athanasiou; Isabelle Roussin; Cesare Quarto; George Asimakopoulos
Journal:  J Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2021-12-27       Impact factor: 1.637

7.  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

8.  Benefits of rapid deployment aortic valve replacement with a mini upper sternotomy.

Authors:  Siobhan Chien; Callum Clark; Saumya Maheshwari; Charilaos-Panagiotis Koutsogiannidis; Vipin Zamvar; Vincenzo Giordano; Kelvin Lim; Renzo Pessotto
Journal:  J Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2020-08-26       Impact factor: 1.637

9.  Traversing the Learning Curve Associated with a New Minimal Access Aortic Valve Replacement Service.

Authors:  Marcus Taylor; June Low; Denish Apparau; Vipin Mehta; Rajamiyer Venkateswaran
Journal:  Braz J Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2021-10-17
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.