Download PDF
Thorac Cardiovasc Surg
DOI: 10.1055/a-2337-1978
Original Cardiovascular

Minimal Learning Curve for Minimally Invasive Aortic Valve Replacement

Dror B. Leviner    *
1   Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Carmel Medical Center Cardiovascular Center, Haifa, Israel
2   Technion Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Haifa, Israel
,
Tom Ronai   *
2   Technion Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Haifa, Israel
,
Dana Abraham
2   Technion Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Haifa, Israel
,
Hadar Eliad
1   Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Carmel Medical Center Cardiovascular Center, Haifa, Israel
,
Naama Schwartz
3   Carmel Medical Center, Research Authority, Haifa, Haifa, Israel
,
Erez Sharoni
1   Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Carmel Medical Center Cardiovascular Center, Haifa, Israel
2   Technion Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Haifa, Israel
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints All articles of this category

Abstract

Background Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MiAVR) is an established technique for surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR). Although MiAVR was first described in 1993 and has shown good results compared with full sternotomy AVR (FSAVR) only a minority of patients undergo MiAVR. We recently started using MiAVR via an upper hemisternotomy. We aimed to examine the early results of our initial experience with this technique.

Methods We compared 55 MiAVR patients with a historical cohort of 142 isolated FSAVR patients (December 2016–December 2022). The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and cross-clamp times, blood product intake, in-hospital morbidity, and length of intensive care unit and hospital stay.

Results There was no significant difference in preoperative characteristics, including age, laboratory values, and comorbidities. There was no significant difference between the groups regarding in-hospital mortality (FSAVR 3.52 vs. MiAVR 1.82%). There was no significant difference in CPB time (FSAVR 103.5 [interquartile range: 82–119.5] vs. MiAVR 107 min [92.5–120]), aortic cross-clamp time (FSAVR 81 [66–92] vs. MiAVR 90 min [73–99]), and valve size (FSAVR 23 [21–25] vs. MiAVR 23 [21–25]). The incidence of intraoperative blood products transfusion was significantly lower in the MiAVR group (10.91%) compared with the FSAVR group (25.35%, p = 0.03).

Conclusion Our findings further establish the possibility of reducing invasiveness of AVR without compromising patient safety and clinical outcomes. This is true even in the learning curve period and without requiring any significant change in the operative technique and dedicated equipment.

Keywords

valve surgery - post-operative outcomes - surgical approach

* These authors contributed equally.


Data Availability Statement

The data underlying this article will be shared on reasonable request to the corresponding author.




Publication History

Received: 21 February 2024

Accepted: 29 May 2024

Accepted Manuscript online:
03 June 2024

Article published online:
28 June 2024

© 2024. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Carabello BA, Paulus WJ. Aortic stenosis. Lancet 2009; 373 (9667) 956-966
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Leon MB, Smith CR, Mack M. et al; PARTNER Trial Investigators. Transcatheter aortic-valve implantation for aortic stenosis in patients who cannot undergo surgery. N Engl J Med 2010; 363 (17) 1597-1607
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Gilmanov D, Solinas M, Farneti PA. et al. Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement: 12-year single center experience. Ann Cardiothorac Surg 2015; 4 (02) 160-169
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Jahangiri M, Hussain A, Akowuah E. Minimally invasive surgical aortic valve replacement. Heart 2019; 105 (Suppl. 02) s10-s15
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Ghoreishi M, Thourani VH, Badhwar V. et al. Less-invasive aortic valve replacement: trends and outcomes from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons database. Ann Thorac Surg 2021; 111 (04) 1216-1223
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Ogami T, Yokoyama Y, Takagi H. et al. Minimally invasive versus conventional aortic valve replacement: the network meta-analysis. J Card Surg 2022; 37 (12) 4868-4874
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Chang C, Raza S, Altarabsheh SE. et al. Minimally invasive approaches to surgical aortic valve replacement: a meta-analysis. Ann Thorac Surg 2018; 106 (06) 1881-1889
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Phan K, Xie A, Di Eusanio M, Yan TD. A meta-analysis of minimally invasive versus conventional sternotomy for aortic valve replacement. Ann Thorac Surg 2014; 98 (04) 1499-1511
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Nashef SAM, Roques F, Sharples LD. et al. EuroSCORE II. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2012; 41 (04) 734-744 , discussion 744–745
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Lancellotti P, Pibarot P, Chambers J. et al. Recommendations for the imaging assessment of prosthetic heart valves: a report from the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging endorsed by the Chinese Society of Echocardiography, the Inter-American Society of Echocardiography, and the Brazilian Department of Cardiovascular Imaging. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 2016; 17 (06) 589-590
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Johnston DR, Atik FA, Rajeswaran J. et al. Outcomes of less invasive J-incision approach to aortic valve surgery. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2012; 144 (04) 852-858.e3
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Mihaljevic T, Cohn LH, Unic D, Aranki SF, Couper GS, Byrne JG. One thousand minimally invasive valve operations: early and late results. Ann Surg 2004; 240 (03) 529-534 , discussion 534
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Ghanta RK, Lapar DJ, Kern JA. et al. Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement provides equivalent outcomes at reduced cost compared with conventional aortic valve replacement: a real-world multi-institutional analysis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2015; 149 (04) 1060-1065
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Masiello P, Coscioni E, Panza A, Triumbari F, Preziosi G, Di Benedetto G. Surgical results of aortic valve replacement via partial upper sternotomy: comparison with median sternotomy. Cardiovasc Surg 2002; 10 (04) 333-338
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Taylor M, Low J, Apparau D, Mehta V, Venkateswaran R. Traversing the learning curve associated with a new minimal access aortic valve replacement service. Rev Bras Cir Cardiovasc 2021; 36 (05) 648-655
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Masuda T, Nakamura Y, Ito Y. et al. The learning curve of minimally invasive aortic valve replacement for aortic valve stenosis. Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2020; 68 (06) 565-570
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Sá MPBO, de Carvalho MMB, Sobral Filho DC. et al. Surgical aortic valve replacement and patient-prosthesis mismatch: a meta-analysis of 108 182 patients. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2019; 56 (01) 44-54
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Orozco-Sevilla V, Salerno TA. Commentary: is minimally invasive cardiac surgery a chimera?. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2023; 165 (03) 1034-1035
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Murphy GJ, Reeves BC, Rogers CA, Rizvi SIA, Culliford L, Angelini GD. Increased mortality, postoperative morbidity, and cost after red blood cell transfusion in patients having cardiac surgery. Circulation 2007; 116 (22) 2544-2552
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Woldendorp K, Manuel L, Srivastava A, Doane M, Bassin L, Marshman D. Perioperative transfusion and long-term mortality after cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis. Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2023; 71 (06) 323-330
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Scott BH, Seifert FC, Grimson R. Blood transfusion is associated with increased resource utilisation, morbidity and mortality in cardiac surgery. Ann Card Anaesth 2008; 11 (01) 15-19
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Vukovic PM, Milojevic P, Stojanovic I. et al. The role of ministernotomy in aortic valve surgery-a prospective randomized study. J Card Surg 2019; 34 (06) 435-439
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Paparella D, Malvindi PG, Santarpino G. et al. Full sternotomy and minimal access approaches for surgical aortic valve replacement: a multicentre propensity-matched study. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2020; 57 (04) 709-716
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Telyuk P, Hancock H, Maier R. et al. Long-term outcomes of mini-sternotomy versus conventional sternotomy for aortic valve replacement: a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2022; 63 (01) 63
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Bonacchi M, Prifti E, Giunti G, Frati G, Sani G. Does ministernotomy improve postoperative outcome in aortic valve operation? A prospective randomized study. Ann Thorac Surg 2002; 73 (02) 460-465 , discussion 465–466
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Alkhouli M, Alqahtani F, Ziada KM, Aljohani S, Holmes DR, Mathew V. Contemporary trends in the management of aortic stenosis in the USA. Eur Heart J 2020; 41 (08) 921-928
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Carroll JD, Mack MJ, Vemulapalli S. et al. STS-ACC TVT registry of transcatheter aortic valve replacement. J Am Coll Cardiol 2020; 76 (21) 2492-2516
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Vahanian A, Beyersdorf F, Praz F. et al; ESC/EACTS Scientific Document Group. 2021 ESC/EACTS Guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease. Eur Heart J 2022; 43 (07) 561-632
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Otto CM, Nishimura RA, Bonow RO. et al. 2020 ACC/AHA guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on clinical practice guidelines. Circulation 2021; 143 (05) e35-e71
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Stachon P, Kaier K, Heidt T. et al. Nationwide outcomes of aortic valve replacement for pure aortic regurgitation in Germany 2008-2015. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2020; 95 (04) 810-816
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar