This site is not optimized for Internet Explorer 8 (or older).
Please upgrade to a newer version of Internet Explorer or use an alternate browser such as Chrome or Firefox.
Ministernotomy versus conventional sternotomy for AVR in 808 pts
– 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 ministernotomy or conventional sternotomy. This study suggests that, AVR can be safely conducted through a partial ministernotomy. 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.
- 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 ministernotomy 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).
- 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.