Subscribe to RSS
DOI: 10.1055/s-0035-1566129
Perioperative Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Aortic Valve Replacement through Right Anterior Minithoracotomy
Publication History
18 August 2015
14 September 2015
Publication Date:
04 November 2015 (online)
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.
-
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