Minimally Invasive Aortic Valve Surgery. A Safe and Useful Technique Beyond the Cosmetic Benefits

被引:26
作者
Paredes, Federico A. [1 ]
Canovas, Sergio J. [1 ]
Gil, Oscar [1 ]
Garcia-Fuster, Rafael [1 ]
Hornero, Fernando [1 ]
Vazquez, Alejandro [1 ]
Martin, Elio [1 ]
Mena, Armando [1 ]
Martinez-Leon, Juan [1 ]
机构
[1] Consorcio Hosp Gen Univ Valencia, Inst Cardiovasc, Serv Cirugia Cardiaca, Valencia, Spain
来源
REVISTA ESPANOLA DE CARDIOLOGIA | 2013年 / 66卷 / 09期
关键词
Aortic valve; Surgery; Minimally invasive; PERCUTANEOUS IMPLANTATION; REPLACEMENT; MINISTERNOTOMY; STERNOTOMY; OPERATIONS;
D O I
10.1016/j.rec.2013.02.013
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Introduction and objectives: The aim of this study was to compare the in-hospital clinical outcomes of minimally invasive, isolated aortic valve replacement vs median sternotomy. Methods: Between 2005 and 2012, 615 patients underwent aortic valve replacement at a single institution, 532 by a median sternotomy (E group) and 83 by a J-shaped ministernotomy (M group). Results: No significant differences were found between the E and M groups in terms of age (69.27 [9.31] years vs 69.40 [10.24] years, respectively), logistic EuroSCORE (6.27 [2.91] vs 5.64 [2.17], respectively), size of implanted valve prosthesis (21.94 [2.04] mm vs 21.79 [2.01] mm, respectively), or the incidence of diabetes, hypercholesterolemia, high blood pressure, or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Mean cardiopulmonary bypass time was 102.90 (41.68) min for the E group vs 81.37 (25.41) min for the M group (P<.001). Mean cross-clamp time was 77.31 (29.20) min vs 63.45 (17.71) min for the S and M groups, respectively (P<.001). Mortality in the E group was 4.88% (26). There were no deaths in the M group (P<.05). The E group was associated with longer intensive care unit and hospital stays: 4.17 (5.23) days vs 3.22 (2.01) days (P=.045) and 9.58 (7.66) days vs 7.27 (3.83) days (P<.001), respectively. E group patients had more postoperative respiratory complications (42 [8%] vs 1 [1.2%]; P<.05). There were no differences when postoperative hemodynamic, neurologic, and renal complications, systemic infection, and wound infection were analyzed. Conclusions: In terms of morbidity, mortality, and operative times, outcomes after minimally invasive surgery for aortic valve replacement are at least comparable to those achieved with median sternotomy. The length of the hospital stay was reduced by minimally invasive surgery in our single-institution experience. The retrospective nature of this study warrants further randomized prospective trials to validate our results. (C) 2013 Sociedad Espanola de Cardiologia. Published by Elsevier Espana, S.L. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:695 / 699
页数:5
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Haemodynamic benefits of rapid deployment aortic valve replacement via a minimally invasive approach: 1-year results of a prospective multicentre randomized controlled trialaEuro
    Borger, Michael A.
    Dohmen, Pascal M.
    Knosalla, Christoph
    Hammerschmidt, Robert
    Merk, Denis R.
    Richter, Markus
    Doenst, Torsten
    Conradi, Lenard
    Treede, Hendrik
    Moustafine, Vadim
    Holzhey, David M.
    Duhay, Francis
    Strauch, Justus
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CARDIO-THORACIC SURGERY, 2016, 50 (04) : 713 - 720
  • [32] Aortic cannulation system for minimally invasive mitral valve surgery
    Barbero, Cristina
    Ricci, Davide
    El Qarra, Suad
    Marchetto, Giovanni
    Boffini, Massimo
    Rinaldi, Mauro
    JOURNAL OF THORACIC AND CARDIOVASCULAR SURGERY, 2015, 149 (06) : 1669 - 1672
  • [33] Do Minimally Invasive Approaches Improve Outcomes of Heart Valve Surgery?
    Tabata, Minoru
    Fukui, Toshihiro
    Takanashi, Shuichiro
    CIRCULATION JOURNAL, 2013, 77 (09) : 2232 - 2239
  • [34] del Nido versus hematic cardioplegia in minimally invasive aortic valve surgery
    Pozzoli, Alberto
    Surace, Giuseppina Gabriella
    Torre, Tiziano
    Bagnato, Pietro
    Gallo, Michele
    Toto, Francesca
    Ferrari, Enrico
    Demertzis, Stefanos
    ASIAN CARDIOVASCULAR & THORACIC ANNALS, 2023, 31 (09) : 795 - 801
  • [35] Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of Minimally Invasive Aortic Valve Replacement
    Hiraoka, Arudo
    Totsugawa, Toshinori
    Kuinose, Masahiko
    Nakajima, Kosuke
    Chikazawa, Genta
    Tamura, Kentaro
    Yoshitaka, Hidenori
    Sakaguchi, Taichi
    CIRCULATION JOURNAL, 2014, 78 (12) : 2876 - 2881
  • [36] Mitral Valve Surgery in Pulmonary Hypertension Patients: Is Minimally Invasive Surgery Safe?
    Helmers, Mark R.
    Kim, Samuel T.
    Altshuler, Peter
    Han, Jason J.
    Iyengar, Amit
    Kelly, John
    Smood, Benjamin
    Hargrove, W. Clark
    Atluri, Pavan
    ANNALS OF THORACIC SURGERY, 2021, 111 (06) : 2012 - 2019
  • [37] Role of Automated Suturing Technology in Minimally Invasive Aortic and Mitral Valve Surgery
    Amirjamshidi, Hossein
    Sauer, Jude S.
    Knight, Peter A.
    SURGICAL TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL-INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENTS IN SURGERY AND SURGICAL RESEARCH, 2020, 36
  • [38] Minimally invasive surgical aortic valve replacement
    Jahangiri, Marjan
    Hussain, Azhar
    Akowuah, Enoch
    HEART, 2019, 105 : S10 - S15
  • [39] Do patients want minimally invasive aortic valve replacement?
    Ehrlich, W
    Skwara, W
    Klövekorn, WP
    Roth, M
    Bauer, EP
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CARDIO-THORACIC SURGERY, 2000, 17 (06) : 714 - 717
  • [40] The learning curve of minimally invasive aortic valve replacement for aortic valve stenosis
    Masuda, Takahiko
    Nakamura, Yoshitsugu
    Ito, Yujiro
    Kuroda, Miho
    Nishijima, Shuhei
    Okuzono, Yasuhito
    Hirano, Takahisa
    Hori, Takaki
    GENERAL THORACIC AND CARDIOVASCULAR SURGERY, 2020, 68 (06) : 565 - 570