Perioperative Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Aortic Valve Replacement through Right Anterior Minithoracotomy

Abstract

Background The aim of the study was to analyze perioperative outcomes after minimally invasive aortic valve replacement through right anterior minithoracotomy (RAT-AVR). Patient selection criteria, anesthesia protocol, and surgical technique are presented.

Methods A retrospective analysis of 194 patients electively scheduled for RAT-AVR was performed between January 2009 and June 2013. For preoperative planning, computed tomography was performed.

Results Among studied patients, there were 48.5% females and 51.5% males with a mean age of 69.9 ± 9.2 years. The predicted mortality calculated with EuroSCORE II was 3.2 ± 0.9%, and observed mortality of RAT-AVR patients was 1.5%. Finally, RAT-AVR surgery was performed on 97.9% of patients (n = 190). Reasons for conversions to median sternotomy were bleeding from aortotomy site (n = 4) and from the right ventricle after epicardial pacing wire placement (n = 1), pleural adhesions (n = 2), and ascending aorta hidden under the sternum (n = 2). The second intercostal space was chosen for surgical access in 97.9% of patients.

There were 3.6% reoperations for bleeding: aortotomy place (n = 1), epicardial pacing wire placement (n = 3), right lung tear (n = 2), and intercostal vessels (n = 1). The intensive care unit and hospital length of stays were 1.3 ± 1.2 and 5.7 ± 1.4 days, respectively. Strokes were present in 1.5% of patients. The perioperative complications rate diminished with time, occurring in 44.9% of the patients between 2009 and 2010 and in 15.6% of patients in 2013.

Conclusions RAT-AVR can be safely performed without increased morbidity and mortality. Reduced complication rates over time reflect a learning curve.

Keywords

aortic valve - minimally invasive surgery - minithoracotomy - valve surgery

• References

• 1 Cosgrove III DM, Sabik JF. Minimally invasive approach for aortic valve operations. Ann Thorac Surg 1996; 62 (2) 596-597
• 2 Cohn LH, Adams DH, Couper GS , et al. Minimally invasive cardiac valve surgery improves patient satisfaction while reducing costs of cardiac valve replacement and repair. Ann Surg 1997; 226 (4) 421-426 , discussion 427–428
• 3 Bakir I, Casselman FP, Wellens F , et al. Minimally invasive versus standard approach aortic valve replacement: a study in 506 patients. Ann Thorac Surg 2006; 81 (5) 1599-1604
• 4 Glauber M, Miceli A, Bevilacqua S, Farneti PA. Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement via right anterior minithoracotomy: early outcomes and midterm follow-up. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2011; 142 (6) 1577-1579
• 5 Lamelas J, Sarria A, Santana O, Pineda AM, Lamas GA. Outcomes of minimally invasive valve surgery versus median sternotomy in patients age 75 years or greater. Ann Thorac Surg 2011; 91 (1) 79-84
• 6 Brinkman WT, Hoffman W, Dewey TM , et al. Aortic valve replacement surgery: comparison of outcomes in matched sternotomy and PORT ACCESS groups. Ann Thorac Surg 2010; 90 (1) 131-135
• 7 Glauber M, Ferrarini M, Miceli A. Minimally invasive aortic valve surgery: state of the art and future directions. Ann Cardiothorac Surg 2015; 4 (1) 26-32
• 8 Byrne JG, Leacche M, Unic D , et al. Staged initial percutaneous coronary intervention followed by valve surgery (“hybrid approach”) for patients with complex coronary and valve disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005; 45 (1) 14-18
• 9 Goolsby MJ. National Kidney Foundation Guidelines for chronic kidney disease: evaluation, classification, and stratification. J Am Acad Nurse Pract 2002; 14 (6) 238-242
• 10 Tutschka MP, Bainbridge D, Chu MWA, Kiaii B, Jones PM. Unilateral postoperative pulmonary edema after minimally invasive cardiac surgical procedures: a case-control study. Ann Thorac Surg 2015; 99 (1) 115-122
• 11 R Development Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2010. Available at: http://www.R-project.org
• 12 Detter C, Deuse T, Boehm DH, Reichenspurner H, Reichart B. Midterm results and quality of life after minimally invasive vs. conventional aortic valve replacement. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2002; 50 (6) 337-341
• 13 Phan K, Xie A, Tsai YC, Black D, Di Eusanio M, Yan TD. Ministernotomy or minithoracotomy for minimally invasive aortic valve replacement: a Bayesian network meta-analysis. Ann Cardiothorac Surg 2015; 4 (1) 3-14
• 14 Tabata M, Umakanthan R, Cohn LH , et al. Early and late outcomes of 1000 minimally invasive aortic valve operations. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2008; 33 (4) 537-541
• 15 Plass A, Scheffel H, Alkadhi H , et al. Aortic valve replacement through a minimally invasive approach: preoperative planning, surgical technique, and outcome. Ann Thorac Surg 2009; 88 (6) 1851-1856
• 16 Grossi EA, Loulmet DF, Schwartz CF , et al. Minimally invasive valve surgery with antegrade perfusion strategy is not associated with increased neurologic complications. Ann Thorac Surg 2011; 92 (4) 1346-1349 , discussion 1349–1350
• 17 Schulze CJ, Wildhirt SM, Boehm DH , et al. Continuous transesophageal echocardiographic (TEE) monitoring during port-access cardiac surgery. Heart Surg Forum 1999; 2 (1) 54-59
• 18 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
• 19 Di Eusanio M, Phan K, Bouchard D , et al. Sutureless aortic valve replacement International Registry (SU-AVR-IR): design and rationale from the International Valvular Surgery Study Group (IVSSG). Ann Cardiothorac Surg 2015; 4 (2) 131-139