Conventional versus minimally invasive aortic valve replacement: pooled analysis of propensity-matched data.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (mAVR) is increasingly preferred over conventional AVR (cAVR). However, data comparing these procedures present conflicting results. Hence, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing clinical results in these cohorts. METHOD: Only randomized controlled trials (RCT) and propensity-matched observational studies (POS) (1998-2013) comparing clinical outcome of patients subjected to mAVR or cAVR were pooled. Continuous data was compared using mean/standardized mean difference (MD/SMD) while categorical results were pooled to obtain an odds ratio (OR) with a 95% confidence interval. RESULTS: A total of 18 studies (6 RCT and 12 POS) (1973 mAVR patients; 2697 cAVR patients) were analyzed. The mean ischemic time was significantly longer with mAVR (MD 9.42 minutes [4.25-14.59]; p < 0.01). However, early mortality (mAVR [1.8%] and cAVR [3%]) was comparable (OR 0.70 [0.46-1.06]; p = 0.09). Postoperative ventilation time was slightly shorter after mAVR (7.5 vs 11.1 hours; p = 0.07), and hospital discharge was earlier after mAVR (MD -1.05 [-1.64 to -0.46]; p < 0.01). However, mAVR failed to reduce transfusion requirement (OR 0.77 [0.51-1.14]; p = 0.19) or pain scores (SMD -0.25 [-0.65 to 0.13]; p = 0.20). Postoperative atrial fibrillation (p = 0.67) and stroke (p = 0.79) rates were comparable. Pooled rate of conversion to full sternotomy was 2.5%. Cosmetic satisfaction could not be pooled due to reporting heterogeneity. CONCLUSION: Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement can be performed safely despite the longer ischemic time. While minimally invasive surgery does demonstrate some advantages in postoperative recovery, we failed to find any other substantial improvement in outcome over conventional aortic valve replacement.

Concomitant replacement of the dilated ascending aorta during aortic valve replacement; does it increase the perioperative morbidity and mortality risks?

BACKGROUND: Concerns of increased surgical risks with ascending aortic replacement have led surgeons to manage post-stenotic aortic dilatation more conservatively during aortic valve replacement (AVR). The present study aimed to assess the prognostic implications and surgical risks of replacing the dilated aorta during AVR. METHODS: Between January 1999 and March 2010, 134 patients who received surgery for aortic stenosis and post-stenotic dilatation (aorta size ≥40 mm) were included in the present study. AVR was performed in 92 patients (AVR group) while aortic valve and ascending aorta replacement (AVR + aorta group) were performed in 42 patients. Overall survival was compared between the two groups using Cox proportional hazard model after adjustment with inverse-probability-of-treatment weighting. RESULTS: The mean follow-up duration was 3.5 ± 3 years. There were no significant differences in the operative mortality and morbidity between the two groups. The late cardiac deaths were also not significantly different between the two groups (p = 1.00). In the AVR group, the ascending aortic expansion rate which was 0.18 mm/year over a mean follow-up duration of 2.3 ± 2.2 years by echocardiography showed a positive correlation with time (r = 0.3, p = 0.08). A relatively greater aortic expansion rate was identified as a risk factor for late mortality (p = 0.015, HR 1.08 (CI: 1.02 to 1.15). CONCLUSIONS: Concomitant replacement of the dilated ascending aorta during AVR did not increase the immediate postoperative morbidity or mortality risks and tended to exert a long-term beneficial effect on the risk of late mortality.