Minimally Invasive versus Conventional Aortic Valve Replacement: A Propensity-Matched Study from the UK National Data

Objective Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MIAVR) has been demonstrated as a safe and effective option but remains underused. We aimed to evaluate outcomes of isolated MIAVR compared with conventional aortic valve replacement (CAVR). Methods Data from The National Institute for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research (NICOR) were analyzed at seven volunteer centers (2006–2012). Primary outcomes were in-hospital mortality and midterm survival. Secondary outcomes were postoperative length of stay as well as cumulative bypass and cross-clamp times. Propensity modeling with matched cohort analysis was used. Results Of 307 consecutive MIAVR patients, 151 (49%) were performed during the last 2 years of study with a continued increase in numbers. The 307 MIAVR patients were matched on a 1:1 ratio. In the matched CAVR group, there was no statistically significant difference in in-hospital mortality [MIAVR, 4/307,(1.3%); 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.4%-3.4% vs CAVR, 6/307 (2.0%); 95% CI, 0.8%-4.3%; P = 0.752]. One-year survival rates in the MIAVR and CAVR groups were 94.4% and 94.6%, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in midterm survival (P = 0.677; hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.56–1.46). Median postoperative length of stay was lower in the MIAVR patients by 1 day (P = 0.009). The mean cumulative bypass time (94.8 vs 91.3 minutes; P = 0.333) and cross-clamp time (74.6 vs 68.4 minutes; P = 0.006) were longer in the MIAVR group; however, this was significant only in the cross-clamp time comparison. Conclusions Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement is a safe alternative to CAVR with respect to operative and 1-year mortality and is associated with a shorter postoperative stay. Further studies are required in high-risk (logistic EuroSCORE > 10) patients to define the role of MIAVR.

Download Full-text

Abstract 18807: Use of Mechanical Circulatory Support and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR): Insights From Nationwide Inpatient Sample

Circulation ◽

10.1161/circ.132.suppl_3.18807 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 132 (suppl_3) ◽

Author(s):

Samir V Patel ◽

Vikas Singh ◽

Chirag Savani ◽

Rajesh Sonani ◽

sidakpal S Panaich ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Aortic Valve ◽

Length Of Stay ◽

Aortic Valve Replacement ◽

Hospital Mortality ◽

Valve Replacement ◽

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement ◽

Mechanical Circulatory Support ◽

Nationwide Inpatient Sample ◽

Circulatory Support ◽

Transcatheter Aortic Valve

Introduction: Short-term use of Mechanical Circulatory Support (MCS) has the potential to benefit the patients undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) who may be high-risk or suffer complications. The present study was conducted to address the contemporary use of MCS in TAVR procedures. Methods: The study included a total of 1794 TAVR procedures in the years 2011-2012 from Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) database. Use of MCS was identified using ICD-9-CM codes. The patients were divided based on use of MCS devices. The primary outcome of the study was in-hospital mortality and the secondary outcomes were complications, length of stay (LOS) and cost. Multi-variate simple logistic regression models were used to identify independent predictors of the outcomes. Results: Out of total 1794 TAVR procedures, 190 (10.6 %) utilized a MCS device (MCS group) and 1,604 (89.4%) did not (non-MCS group). The use of MCS devices with TAVR was associated with increase in the in-hospital mortality (14.9% vs. 3.5%, p<0.01) with same results obtained in multi-variate models. The rates of complications were significantly higher in MCS group so as the mean length of stay (11.8±0.8 vs. 8.1±0.2 days, p<0.01) and cost ($68,997±3,656 vs. $55,878±653, p=0.03). Conclusion: Use of MCS in TAVR predicts increase in-hospital mortality, complications, LOS and cost of care.

Download Full-text

Traditional Sternotomy versus Minimally Invasive Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients Stratified by Ejection Fraction

Innovations Technology and Techniques in Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery ◽

10.1097/imi.0000000000000338 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 12 (1) ◽

pp. 33-40 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Tom C. Nguyen ◽

Vinod H. Thourani ◽

Justin Q. Pham ◽

Yelin Zhao ◽

Matthew D. Terwelp ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Intensive Care Unit ◽

Intensive Care ◽

Aortic Valve ◽

Ejection Fraction ◽

Aortic Valve Replacement ◽

Minimally Invasive ◽

Valve Replacement ◽

Short Term ◽

Postoperative Length ◽

Sts Score

Objective Low ejection fraction (EF < 40%) portends adverse outcomes in patients undergoing valvular heart surgery. The role of traditional median sternotomy aortic valve replacement (SAVR) compared with minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MIAVR) in this cohort remains incompletely understood. Methods A multi-institutional retrospective review of 1503 patients who underwent SAVR (n = 815) and MIAVR via right anterior thoracotomy (n = 688) from 2011 to 2014 was performed. Patients were stratified into two groups: EF of less than 40% and EF of 40% or more. In each EF group, SAVR and MIAVR patients were propensity matched by age, sex, body mass index, race, diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, dialysis, cerebrovascular disease, cardiovascular disease, cerebro-vascular accident, peripheral vascular disease, last creatinine level, EF, previous MI and cardiogenic shock, and the Society for Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score. Results Among patients with an EF of 40% or more (377 pairs), patients who underwent MIAVR compared with SAVR had decreased intensive care unit hours (56.8% vs 84.6%, P < 0.001), postoperative length of stay (7.1 vs 7.9 days, P = 0.04), incidence of atrial fibrillation (18.8% vs 38.7%, P < 0.001), bleeding (0.8% vs 3.2%, P = 0.04), and a trend toward decreased 30-day mortality (0.3% vs 1.3%, P = 0.22). The STS scores were largely equivalent in patients undergoing MIAVR compared with SAVR (2.4% vs 2.6%, P = 0.09). In patients with an EF of less than 40% (35 pairs), there was no difference in intensive care unit hours (69% vs 72.6%, P = 0.80), postoperative length of stay (10.3 vs 7.2 days, P = 0.13), 30-day mortality (3.8% vs 0.8%, P = 0.50), or the STS score (3.3% vs 3.2%, P = 0.68). Conclusions Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement in patients with preserved EF was associated with improved short-term outcomes compared with SAVR. In patients with left ventricular dysfunction, short-term outcomes between MIAVR and SAVR are largely equivalent.

Download Full-text

1269 Five Year Propensity Matched Outcomes of Minimally Invasive vs Conventional Isolated Aortic Valve Surgery

British Journal of Surgery ◽

10.1093/bjs/znab259.255 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 108 (Supplement_6) ◽

Author(s):

S Oo ◽

A Khan ◽

J Chan ◽

H Vohra

Keyword(s):

Aortic Valve ◽

Aortic Valve Replacement ◽

Minimally Invasive ◽

Valve Replacement ◽

Rank Test ◽

Valve Prosthesis ◽

Term Survival ◽

Operative Outcomes ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Aortic Valve Prosthesis

Abstract Aim To analyse the early and mid-term outcomes of the patients undergoing conventional isolated aortic valve replacement (CAVR) versus minimally invasive isolated aortic valve replacement (MIAVR). Method This is a single centre retrospective study involving 653 patients who underwent isolated aortic valve replacement either via CAVR (n = 516) or MIAVR (n = 137) between August 2015 and March 2020. Using pre-operative characteristics, patients were propensity matched (PM) to produce 114 matched pairs. Assessment of peri-operative outcomes, early and mid-term survival and echocardiographic parameters was performed. Results PM analysis showed the larger sized aortic valve prosthesis were inserted in the MIAVR group (22.8±2.5mm) compared to CAVR group (22.0±2.2mm)(p = 0.010). CPB time was longer with MIAVR (94.4±19.5mins) compared to CAVR (83.1 + 33.3; p = 0.003). There were no differences in the early post-operative complications and mortality between the two groups. Follow-up echocardiographic data showed significant difference in mean aortic valve gradients between CAVR and MIAVR groups (17.3±8.2mmHg and13.0±5.1mmHg, respectively; p = 0.001). There was no significant difference between CAVR and MIAVR in the mid-term survival at 3 years. (log-rank test p = 0.314). Conclusions This study found that larger aortic valve sizes with lower mean gradients are being implanted in the MIAVR group. Despite the longer CPB time in the MIAVR group, there was no significant difference in the early complications, mortality, and mid-term survival between MIAVR and CAVR. Further studies will be required to analyse the long-term survival.

Download Full-text

Concomitant Annular Enlargement in Minimally Invasive Aortic Valve Replacement

Innovations Technology and Techniques in Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery ◽

10.1177/1556984519827685 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 14 (2) ◽

pp. 159-167

Author(s):

Davida A. Robinson ◽

Carl A. Johnson ◽

Ariana M. Goodman ◽

Peter A. Knight

Keyword(s):

Cardiopulmonary Bypass ◽

Aortic Valve ◽

Length Of Stay ◽

Aortic Valve Replacement ◽

Minimally Invasive ◽

Valve Replacement ◽

Hospital Length ◽

Hospital Length Of Stay ◽

Aortic Root Enlargement ◽

Complications Rate

Objective Aortic root enlargement may be necessary to implant adequately sized valves to avoid patient–prosthetic mismatch. Our objective was to assess the feasibility of annular enlargement during aortic valve replacement via a right anterior minithoracotomy. Methods Twelve consecutive patients undergoing elective minimally invasive aortic valve replacement requiring annular enlargement over a 2-year period were retrospectively reviewed. A right anterior minithoracotomy was performed in all patients. Cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic crossclamp times, hospital length of stay, postoperative complications, rate of reoperation, echocardiographic data, and mortality were analyzed. Results Mean age was 66 years ± 14. Mean body mass index was 34 ± 7.8 kg/m2. All patients had normal preoperative ejection fractions. Indications for aortic valve replacement were severe (3/12, 25%) or critical (9/12, 75%) aortic stenosis due to degenerative aortic valve disease (10/12, 83%) and congenitally bicuspid aortic valve (2/12, 17%). Cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic crossclamp times were 144.7 ± 14.7 minutes and 111.7 ± 10.6 minutes, respectively. The median postoperative length of stay was 4 days. Peak and mean aortic valve gradients on postreplacement intraoperative transesophageal echocardiography were 14.5 ± 9.4 mmHg and 7.2 ± 4.2 mmHg, respectively, with no perivalvular leak on intraoperative or follow-up transthoracic echocardiogram. Postoperative transthoracic echocardiography had peak and mean aortic valve gradients of 12.1 ± 6.9 mmHg and 6.3 ± 3.7 mmHg, respectively. There were no postoperative mortalities. Freedom from reoperation was 100%. Conclusions Annular enlargement performed during minimally invasive aortic valve replacement is feasible. Basic minimally invasive skills are recommended prior to instituting these more advanced techniques.

Download Full-text

Abstract 14989: Failure to Rescue After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Does Experience Matter?

Circulation ◽

10.1161/circ.142.suppl_3.14989 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 142 (Suppl_3) ◽

Author(s):

Lise Tchouta ◽

Hechuan Hou ◽

Karen Kim ◽

Mike Thompson

Keyword(s):

Aortic Valve ◽

Aortic Valve Replacement ◽

Hospital Mortality ◽

Valve Replacement ◽

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement ◽

High Volume ◽

Failure To Rescue ◽

Transcatheter Aortic Valve ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Procedural Complications

Introduction: Volume-outcome relationships are well defined in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), but little is known about how hospital experience in aortic valve replacement (AVR) informs processes of care to rescue patients once a complication occurs after TAVR. Hypothesis: Increasing AVR experience improves post-TAVR rates of failure to rescue (FTR) - defined as in-hospital mortality after major treatable post-procedural complications. Methods: Statewide Inpatient Databases from seven diverse states were queried from 2011 to 2017 for patients who underwent TAVR. Hospitals were stratified as low vs high-volume by mean annualized SAVR and TAVR volume using the median as cutoff: SAVR = 43 cases/year, TAVR = 28 cases/year. Crude rates of complications, in-hospital mortality, and FTR were estimated for the overall sample and stratified by SAVR and TAVR volume (low vs high). Logistic regression was used to estimate the adjusted odds ratio of SAVR and TAVR volume, independently, on the outcomes above, adjusting for patient demographics and comorbid conditions. Results: A total of 42,025 TAVR patients were identified and categorized as low (N = 2,946) or high-volume (N = 39,079) SAVR centers, and low (N = 7,183) or high-volume (N = 34,842) TAVR centers. Within the high-volume SAVR centers, 84.8% were also high-volume TAVR centers. Low SAVR or TAVR volume was associated with a marginal increase in the risk of developing complications after TAVR (OR 1.26; P < 0.001 and OR 1.14; P < 0.001) as show in Table 1. There was no statistically significant difference in risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality rates (OR 1.10; P = 0.499 and OR 1.10; P = 0.273) or FTR rates (OR 0.97; P = 0.816 and OR 1.03; P = 0.732) after TAVR between low- and high-volume SAVR or TAVR centers, respectively. Conclusion: Undergoing TAVR at a high-volume SAVR or TAVR center was associated with lower rates of complications, but volume was not an independent predictor of in-hospital mortality or FTR.

Download Full-text

Anatomical circumstances and aortic cross-clamp time in minimally invasive aortic valve replacement

Interactive Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery ◽

10.1093/icvts/ivaa251 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Jure Jug ◽

Zdravko Štor ◽

Borut Geršak

Keyword(s):

Aortic Valve ◽

Linear Regression ◽

Aortic Valve Replacement ◽

Minimally Invasive ◽

Valve Replacement ◽

Linear Regression Model ◽

Aortic Cross Clamp Time ◽

Aortic Cross Clamp ◽

Cross Clamp Time ◽

The Right

Abstract OBJECTIVES Prolonged operative times, potentially leading to increased morbidity, are a possible drawback of minimally invasive aortic valve replacement. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of anatomical circumstances in the chest on aortic cross-clamp time. METHODS This retrospective study included 68 patients who underwent minimally invasive aortic valve replacement with the Perceval sutureless valve via right-anterior thoracotomy or with ministernotomy. Anatomical variables were measured during preoperative computer tomography scans. RESULTS Aortic cross-clamp time was shorter in those having ministernotomy than in the right-anterior thoracotomy group (41.1 vs 52.3 min; P < 0.001). Cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time was not significantly different between groups (P = 0.09). A multivariable linear-regression model (P = 0.018) showed the aortic dextroposition variable to be a significant predictor of the aortic cross-clamp method and CPB times (P = 0.005 and P = 0.003) independent of other anatomical variables in the right thoracotomy group (10 mm deviation from optimal position prolonged the times for 240 and 600 s). For the whole cohort, a correlation between aortic valve dimensions and operative times was found (P = 0.046, P = 0.009). A linear-regression model (P = 0,046) predicted 90 s longer aortic cross-clamp time and 231 s longer CPB time for every 1 mm smaller aortic valve diameter. CONCLUSIONS The anatomical variables are associated with the operative times in minimally invasive aortic valve replacement with sutureless valves. Considering this association, preplanning the procedure is recommended.

Download Full-text

Propensity matched analysis of minimally invasive versus conventional isolated aortic valve replacement

Perfusion ◽

10.1177/02676591211045802 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 026765912110458

Author(s):

Shwe Oo ◽

Amilah Khan ◽

Jeremy Chan ◽

Sanjay Juneja ◽

Massimo Caputo ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Aortic Valve ◽

Aortic Valve Replacement ◽

Minimally Invasive ◽

Valve Replacement ◽

Rank Test ◽

Term Outcome ◽

Term Survival ◽

Operative Outcomes ◽

Significant Difference

Objective: To analyse the early and mid-term outcome of patients undergoing conventional aortic valve replacement (AVR) versus minimally invasive via hemi-sternotomy aortic valve replacement (MIAVR). Methods: A single centre retrospective study involving 653 patients who underwent isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR) either via conventional AVR ( n = 516) or MIAVR ( n = 137) between August 2015 and March 2020. Using pre-operative characteristics, patients were propensity matched (PM) to produce 114 matched pairs. Assessment of peri-operative outcomes, early and mid-term survival and echocardiographic parameters was performed. Results: The mean age of the PM conventional AVR group was 71.5 (±8.9) years and the number of male ( n = 57) and female ( n = 57) patients were equal. PM MIAVR group mean age was 71.1 (±9.5) years, and 47% of patients were female ( n = 54) and 53% male ( n = 60). Median follow-up for PM conventional AVR and MIAVR patients was 3.4 years (minimum 0, maximum 4.8 years) and 3.4 years (minimum 0, maximum 4.8 years), respectively. Larger sized aortic valve prostheses were inserted in the MIAVR group (median 23, IQR = 4) versus conventional AVR group (median 21, IQR = 2; p = 0.02, SMD = 0.34). Cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time was longer with MIAVR (94.4 ± 19.5 minutes) compared to conventional AVR (83.1 ± 33.3; p = 0.0001, SMD = 0.41). Aortic cross-clamp (AoX) time was also longer in MIAVR (71.6 ± 16.5 minutes) compared to conventional AVR (65.0 ± 52.8; p = 0.0001, SMD = 0.17). There were no differences in the early post-operative complications and mortality between the two groups. Follow-up echocardiographic data showed significant difference in mean aortic valve gradients between conventional AVR and MIAVR groups (17.3 ± 8.2 mmHg vs 13.0 ± 5.1 mmHg, respectively; p = 0.01, SMD = −0.65). There was no significant difference between conventional AVR and MIAVR in mid-term survival at 3 years (88.6% vs 92.1%; log-rank test p = 0.31). Conclusion: Despite the longer CPB and AoX times in the MIAVR group, there was no significant difference in early complications, mortality and mid-term survival between MIAVR and conventional AVR.

Download Full-text