Impact of aortic valve replacement in symptomatic low-risk patients with less than severe aortic stenosis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether transcatheter or surgical aortic valve replacement (TAVR or SAVR) affects clinical and haemodynamic outcomes in symptomatic patients with moderately-severe aortic stenosis (AS). METHODS: Echocardiographic evidence of severe AS for enrolment in the Evolut Low Risk trial was based on site-reported measurements. For this post hoc analysis, core laboratory measurements identified patients with symptomatic moderately-severe AS (1.0

Low-Dose vs Standard Warfarin After Mechanical Mitral Valve Replacement: A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend a target international normalized ratio (INR) range of 2.5 to 3.5 in patients with a mechanical mitral prosthesis. The Prospective Randomized On-X Anticoagulation Clinical Trial (PROACT) Mitral randomized controlled noninferiority trial assessed safety and efficacy of warfarin at doses lower than currently recommended in patients with an On-X (Artivion, Inc) mechanical mitral valve. METHODS: After On-X mechanical mitral valve replacement, followed by at least 3 months of standard anticoagulation, 401 patients at 44 North American centers were randomized to low-dose warfarin (target INR, 2.0-2.5) or standard-dose warfarin (target INR, 2.5-3.5). All patients were prescribed aspirin, 81 mg daily, and encouraged to use home INR testing. The primary end point was the sum of the linearized rates of thromboembolism, valve thrombosis, and bleeding events. The design was based on an expected 7.3% event rate and 1.5% noninferiority margin. RESULTS: Mean patient follow-up was 4.1 years. Mean INR was 2.47 and 2.92 (P <.001) in the low-dose and standard-dose warfarin groups, respectively. Primary end point rates were 11.9% per patient-year in the low-dose group and 12.0% per patient-year in the standard-dose group (difference, -0.07%; 95% CI, -3.40% to 3.26%). The CI >1.5%, thus noninferiority was not achieved. Rates (percentage per patient-year) of the individual components of the primary end point were 2.3% vs 2.5% for thromboembolism, 0.5% vs 0.5% for valve thrombosis, and 9.13% vs 9.04% for bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with standard-dose warfarin, low-dose warfarin did not achieve noninferiority for the composite primary end point. (PROACT Clinicaltrials.gov number, NCT00291525).

Endoscopic vs Open Vein Harvest in Drug-Eluting Stents or Bypass Surgery for Left Main Disease Trial.

BACKGROUND: We investigated outcomes of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) with endoscopic vein harvest (EVH) vs open vein harvest (OVH) within the Evaluation of XIENCE Versus CABG (EXCEL) trial. METHODS: All patients in EXCEL randomized to CABG were included in this study. For this analysis, the primary end points were ischemia-driven revascularization (IDR) and graft stenosis or occlusion at 5 years. Additional end points were as follows: a composite of death from any cause, stroke, or myocardial infarction; bleeding; blood product transfusion; major arrhythmia; and infection requiring antibiotics. Event rates were based on Kaplan-Meier estimates in time-to-first-event analyses. RESULTS: Of the 957 patients randomized to CABG, 686 (71.7%) received at least 1 venous graft with 257 (37.5%) patients in the EVH group and 429 (62.5%) patients in the OVH group. At 5 years, IDR was higher (11.5% vs 6.7%; P = .047) in the EVH group. At 5 years, rates of graft stenosis or occlusion (9.7% vs 5.4%; P = .054) and the primary end point (17.4% vs 20.9%; P = .27) were similar. In-hospital bleeding (11.3% vs 13.8%; P = .35), in-hospital blood product transfusion (12.8% vs 13.1%; P = .94), and infection requiring antibiotics within 1 month (13.6% vs 16.8%; P = .27) were similar between EVH and OVH patients. Major arrhythmia in the hospital (19.8% vs 13.5%; P = .03) and within 1 month (21.8% vs 15.4%; P = .03) was higher in EVH patients. CONCLUSIONS: IDR at 5 years was higher in the EVH group. EVH and OVH patients had similar rates of graft stenosis or occlusion and the composite of death, stroke, or myocardial infarction at 5 years.

Mechanisms of Death in Low-Risk Patients After Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement.

BACKGROUND: Death in high- and intermediate-risk patients after self-expanding transcatheter (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (surgery) differed in mechanisms and timing. In both risk groups, 1-year all-cause mortality was lower in TAVR than in surgery patients. The differences in mechanism and timing of death in low-risk patients has not been studied. This report explores the mechanisms of death during 3 time periods; 0 to 30 days (early), 31 to 120 days (recovery), and 121 to 365 days (late). METHODS: We retrospectively examined the mechanisms and timing of death following TAVR or surgery in the randomized Evolut Low Risk Trial. Patients were enrolled between March 2016 and November 2018 from 86 designated TAVR centers. Mechanisms of death were categorized as due to technical reasons, failure to repair, complications linked to death, failure to recover or other. RESULTS: All-cause mortality at 1 year was 2.2% for TAVR and 2.8% for surgery, p = 0.44. Early deaths included 3 TAVR patients, all due to technical reasons, and 8 surgery patients (1 technical, 5 complications and 2 failed to recover). Recovery period deaths included 6 TAVR patients (4 complications, 1 failed to recover and 1 other), and 1 surgery patient from complications of valve endocarditis. Late period deaths included 6 TAVR patients and 9 surgery patients, primarily due to complications. CONCLUSIONS: In this low-risk study cohort, no patient died from failure to repair the valve; reduction in procedural complications in the TAVR and surgery groups remain opportunities for further improvement in outcomes. Clinical Trial Registrations (clinicaltrials.gov): NCT02701283 (Evolut Low Risk).

WITHDRAWN: Low-Dose Versus Standard Warfarin After Mechanical Mitral Valve Replacement: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

This article has been withdrawn at the request of the author(s) and/or editor. The Publisher apologizes for any inconvenience this may cause. The full Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal can be found at https://www.elsevier.com/about/our-business/policies/article-withdrawal.

New Insights Into Understanding Rotor Versus Focal Activation in Patients With Persistent Atrial Fibrillation.

OBJECTIVES: This study was to test the hypotheses that: 1) when using phase analysis, repetitive Wannabe re-entry produces a phase singularity point (i.e., a rotor); and 2) the location of the stable rotor is close to the focal source. BACKGROUND: Recent contact mapping studies in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) demonstrated that phase analysis produced a different mechanistic result than classical activation sequence analysis. Our studies in patients with persistent AF showed that focal sources sometimes produced repetitive Wannabe re-entry, that is, incomplete re-entry. METHODS: During open heart surgery, we recorded activation from both atria simultaneously using 510 to 512 electrodes in 12 patients with persistent AF. We performed activation sequence mapping and phase analyses on 4 s of mapped data. For each detected stable rotor (>2 full rotations [720°] recurring at the same site), the corresponding activation patterns were examined from the activation sequence maps. RESULTS: During AF, phase singularity points (rotors) were identified in both atria in all patients. However, stable phase singularity points were only present in 6 of 12 patients. The range of stable phase singularity points per patient was 0 to 6 (total 14). Stable phase singularity points were produced due to repetitive Wannabe re-entry generated from a focal source or by passive activation. A conduction block sometimes created a stable phase singularity point (n = 2). The average distance between a focal source and a stable rotor was 0.9 ± 0.3 cm. CONCLUSIONS: Repetitive Wannabe re-entry generated stable rotors adjacent to a focal source. No true re-entry occurred.

Safety-net hospitals versus non-safety centers and clinical outcomes after trans-catheter aortic valve replacement.

OBJECTIVE: To compare post-procedural outcomes of trans-catheter valve replacement (TAVR) among safety-net (SNH) and non-safety net hospitals (non-SNH). BACKGROUND: SNH treat a large population of un-insured and low income patients; prior studies report worse outcome at these centers. Results of TAVR at these centers is limited. METHODS: Adults undergoing TAVR at hospitals in the US participating in the National In-patient sample (NIS) database from January 2014 to December 2015 were included. A 1:1 propensity-matched cohort of patients operated at SNH and non-SNH institutions was analyzed, on the basis of 16 demographic and clinical co-variates. Main outcome was all-cause post-procedural mortality. Secondary outcomes included stroke, acute kidney injury and length of post-operative stay. RESULTS: Between 2014 and 2015, 41,410 patients (mean age 80 ± 0.11 years, 46% female) underwent TAVR at 731 centers; 6,996 (16.80%) procedures were performed at SNH comprising 135/731 (18.4%) of all centers performing TAVR. SNH patients were more likely to be female (49% vs. 46%, p < .001); admitted emergently (31% vs. 21%; p < .001; at the lowest quartile for household income (25% % vs. 20%; p < .001) and from minorities (Blacks 5.9% vs. 3.9%; Hispanic 7.2% vs. 3.2%).Adjusted logistic regression was performed on 6,995 propensity-matched patient pairs. Post-procedural mortality [OR 0.99(0.98-1.007); p = .43], stroke [OR 1.009(0.99-1.02); p = .08], acute kidney injury [OR 0.99(0.96-1.01); p = .5] and overall length of stay (6.9 ± 0.1 vs. 7.1 ± 0.2 days; p = .57) were comparable in both cohorts. CONCLUSION: Post-procedural outcomes after TAVR at SNH are comparable to national outcomes and wider adoption of TAVR at SNH may not adversely influence outcomes.

Impact of Repositioning on Outcomes Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With a Self-Expandable Valve.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare outcomes following transcatheter aortic valve replacement when valve repositioning was performed (repositioned group) versus procedures without repositioning (nonrepositioned group). BACKGROUND: The Evolut R and Evolut PRO valves were designed to allow repositioning during deployment, yet the effect of repositioning on clinical outcomes remains unclear. METHODS: Patients implanted with the Evolut R or PRO valve from the SURTAVI (Surgical Replacement and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) trial continued access study and the Evolut Low Risk Trial between June 2016 and November 2018 were combined. Baseline multidetector computed tomography data were analyzed for the Evolut Low Risk Trial patients. The primary outcomes were the rate of all-cause mortality and the rate of disabling stroke 30 days. Secondary outcomes were per Valve Academic Research Consortium-2. RESULTS: The Evolut R or PRO valve was implanted in 946 patients, and repositioning was performed in 318 (33.6%). Compared with patients in the nonrepositioned group, patients in the repositioned group had lower Society of Thoracic Surgeons score (2.3 ± 1.3% vs. 2.6 ± 1.4%; p < 0.001) and fewer prior percutaneous coronary interventions (11.9% vs. 19.7%; p = 0.003). There were no differences in baseline multidetector computed tomography parameters between groups. There were no differences in the primary outcome of death (0.3% vs. 0.3%; p = 0.99) or disabling stroke (0.3% vs. 0.5%; p = 0.71) at 30 days or 1 year (1.9% vs. 2.9%; p = 0.44; and 0.8% vs. 0.9%%; p = 0.79, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The utilization of the repositioning feature of the Evolut valves was safe, and no differences in death or disabling stroke were observed at 30 days or 1 year between groups. (Medtronic Evolut Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Low Risk Patients; NCT02701283; Safety and Efficacy Study of the Medtronic CoreValve® System In the Treatment of Severe, Symptomatic Aortic Stenosis in Intermediate Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement [SURTAVI]; NCT01586910).

Transcatheter Valve Implantation for Failed Surgical Aortic and Mitral Bioprostheses: A Single-Center Experience.

OBJECTIVES: We share our center's experience with the use of transcatheter valvular therapies in the setting of failed bioprostheses. BACKGROUND: As medicine continues to advance, the lifespan of individuals continues to increase, and current surgical valvular therapies begin to degrade prior to a person's end of life. It is important to evaluate the efficacy and durability of transcatheter valves within failed surgical bioprostheses. METHODS: Baseline characteristics, periprocedural complications, and long-term outcomes were collected and assessed in patients who received transcatheter valves for failing surgical aortic valve bioprostheses and mitral valve and ring bioprostheses from March 2011 to July 2018. RESULTS: From our cohort of 1048 patients, we identified 45 individuals (4.3%) who underwent transcatheter replacement of a failed bioprosthetic valve or ring. Mean age at presentation was 80.8 ± 10.7 years and 75.5 ± 9.3 years, mean STS score was 9.3 ± 5.1 and 13.3 ± 8.7, and mean time to failure was 12.0 ± 5.2 years and 7.3 ± 4.5 years for aortic and mitral positions, respectively. At 1 year, time to event analysis suggested a 16.4% mortality rate for aortic replacement and 12.8% mortality rate for mitral replacement. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate outcomes from one of the largest single-center United States based cohorts of transcatheter replacements of failed surgical bioprostheses. Our center has demonstrated that it is feasible to pursue the replacement of failed surgical bioprostheses in the aortic and mitral positions with transcatheter valves given appropriate patient selection.

Risk Prediction Model for Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Implantation After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to develop and validate a risk prediction model for high-grade atrioventricular block requiring cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). BACKGROUND: High-grade atrioventricular block requiring CIED remains a significant sequelae following TAVR. Although several pre-operative characteristics have been associated with the risk of post-operative CIED implantation, an accurate and validated risk prediction model is not established yet. METHODS: This was a single center, retrospective study of consecutive patients who underwent TAVR from March 10, 2011, to October 8, 2018. This cohort sample was randomly divided into a derivation cohort (group A) and a validation cohort (group B). A scoring system for risk prediction of post-TAVR CIED implantation was devised using logistic regression estimates in group A and the calibration and validation were done in group B. RESULTS: A total of 1,071 patients underwent TAVR during the study period. After excluding pre-existing CIED, a total of 888 cases were analyzed (group A: 507 and group B: 381). Independent predictive variables were as follows: self-expanding valve (1 point), hypertension (1 point), pre-existing first-degree atrioventricular block (1 point), and right bundle branch block (2 points). The resulting score was calculated from the total points. The internal validation in group B showed an ideal linear relationship in calibration plot (R2 = 0.933) and a good predictive accuracy (area under the curve: 0.693; 95% confidence interval: 0.627 to 0.759). CONCLUSIONS: This prediction model accurately predicts post-operative risk of CIED implantation with simple pre-operative parameters.

Effect of Lidocaine Injection of Ganglionated Plexi in a Canine Model and Patients With Persistent and Long-Standing Persistent Atrial Fibrillation.

Background This study assessed the effect of blockading neural transmission in the ganglionated plexi by injecting lidocaine into fat pads in the vagal nerve stimulation canine model and patients with persistent atrial fibrillation ( AF ). Methods and Results An efficacy test of lidocaine injection was performed in 7 canines. During vagal nerve stimulation, AF was sustained for >5 minutes. The lidocaine was injected into ganglionated plexi during sinus rhythm and reinduction of AF was attempted. Six patients with persistent AF were studied at open heart surgery. Lidocaine was injected into ganglionated plexi. Atrial electrograms were recorded from 96 epicardial electrodes covering Bachmann's bundle and atrial appendages. In the canine vagal nerve stimulation AF model, AF was not inducible in 4 of 7 after lidocaine injection. In patients with persistent AF , during baseline AF , there was a left atrium ( LA )-to-right atrium ( RA ) frequency gradient ( LA , mean cycle length [ CL ] 175±17 ms; RA , mean CL 192±17 ms; P<0.01). After lidocaine injection, AF persisted in all patients, and the LA -to- RA frequency gradient disappeared ( LA , mean CL 186±13 ms; RA , mean CL 199±23 ms; P=0.08). Comparison of mean CL s before and after lidocaine demonstrated prolongation of LA CL s ( P<0.05) with no effect on RA CL s. Conclusions In the canine vagal nerve stimulation AF model, lidocaine injection decreased inducibility of AF . In patients with persistent AF , atrial electrograms from the LA had shorter CL s than RA , indicating an LA -to- RA frequency gradient. Lidocaine injection significantly prolonged only LA CL s, explaining disappearance of the LA -to- RA frequency gradient. The mechanism of localized atrial electrogram CL prolongation in patients with persistent AF is uncertain.

Stability After Initial Decline in Coronary Revascularization Rates in the United States.

BACKGROUND: It remains uncertain how advances in revascularization techniques, availability of new evidence, and updated guidelines have influenced the annual rates of coronary revascularization in the United States. METHODS: We used the Nationwide Inpatient Sample data from 2005 to 2014 with appropriate weighting to determine national procedural volumes. To present accurately overall percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) rates, PCI with same-day discharge numbers per year were estimated from the available literature and added to annual PCI procedures performed. RESULTS: Annual PCI rate declined from 353 per 100,000 adults in 2005 to 277 per 100,000 adults in 2009 (P < .001) but remained stable thereafter (P = .50). Annual coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) rate declined steadily, at a shallower slope than PCI, from 120 per 100,000 in 2005 to 93 per 100,000 in 2009 (P = .02) but remained stable thereafter (P = .60). Similar trends were seen in men and women. Both PCI and CABG rates were lower in women than men over the study period (PCI, 482 to 324/100,000 in men vs 232 to 153/100,000 in women; CABG, 172 to 118/100,000 in men vs 64 to 38/100,000 in women). Annual PCI rates were higher than CABG rates in patients of all age groups including in younger patients (age < 50) and octogenarians. The proportion of coronary revascularization procedures performed per insurance type remained relatively similar across the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Annual rates of coronary revascularization have changed significantly over time, potentially because of advances in revascularization techniques, availability of new evidence, and updated guidelines. Rates of PCI declined more steeply than CABG before plateauing but remained higher than rates of CABG across the study period.

Feasibility and Safety of Adopting Next-Day Discharge as First-Line Option After Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

OBJECTIVES: Data on next-day discharge (NDD) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are limited. This study investigated the feasibility and safety of NDD as a first-line option (the very-early discharge [VED] strategy) compared with the early-discharge (ED) strategy (2-3 days as a first-line option) after TAVR. METHODS: We reviewed 611 consecutive patients who had minimalist TAVR (transfemoral approach under conscious sedation) and no in-hospital mortality; a total of 418 patients underwent ED strategy (since December 2013) and 193 patients underwent VED strategy (as part of a hospital initiative to reduce length of stay, since August 2016). NDD in the VED strategy was performed with heart team consensus in patients without significant complications. The primary outcome was a composite of 30-day all-cause mortality/rehospitalization. RESULTS: Sixty-five patients (33.7%) in the VED strategy and 10 patients (2.4%) in the ED strategy were discharged the next day (P<.001). NDD patients had received balloon-expandable (n = 30) or self-expanding valves (n = 45) and showed a similar primary outcome rate compared with non-NDD patients. After adjustment using propensity score matching (172 pairs), post-TAVR length of stay was significantly shorter in the VED group (3.2 ± 3.1 days) than in the ED group (3.5 ± 2.7 days; P<.01). The primary outcome did not differ between the two groups (7.0% vs 11.6%; P=.14), with comparable 30-day mortality rate (1.2% vs 2.3%; P=.68) and rehospitalization rate (5.8% vs 11.1%; P=.08). CONCLUSIONS: Utilization of NDD as a first-line option after minimalist TAVR is feasible and safe, and leads to further reduction in length of stay compared with an ED strategy.

Short-Term and Long-Term Outcomes of Patients Undergoing Urgent Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Under a Minimalist Strategy.

OBJECTIVES: Urgent transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is associated with worse short-term outcomes compared with elective TAVR; however, little is known about long-term outcomes or the safety of the minimalist strategy in this setting. This study investigated the short-term and long-term outcomes of urgent TAVR compared with elective TAVR under a minimalist strategy (transfemoral [TF] approach with conscious sedation and no transesophageal echocardiography guidance). METHODS: After excluding 2 emergent patients requiring immediate procedures, a total of 474 consecutive patients underwent elective TF-TAVR (396 patients; 83.6%) or urgent TF-TAVR (78 patients; 16.4%). Urgent TAVR was defined as a procedure performed in the same hospitalization in patients emergently admitted due to cardiac arrest, severe acute decompensated heart failure, acute coronary syndrome, or repeated syncopal episodes. RESULTS: A minimalist approach was used in 77 patients (98.7%) undergoing urgent TAVR and in 392 patients (99.0%) undergoing elective TAVR (P=.59). Urgent TAVR had similar procedure-related complications, such as stroke, myocardial infarction, bleeding or vascular complications, and in-hospital mortality compared with elective TAVR (mortality, 1.3% vs 0.8%; P=.51) with no intraprocedural cross-over from conscious sedation to general anesthesia. However, 30-day and 1-year survival rates were reduced in patients undergoing urgent TAVR. After adjustment with baseline and procedural factors, urgent TAVR remained significantly predictive of 1-year mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.26; 95% confidence interval, 1.16-4.23; P=.01). CONCLUSIONS: Urgent minimalist TAVR can be safely performed with favorable in-hospital outcomes, while increased 30-day and 1-year mortality rates suggest the importance of appropriate diagnosis and timely treatment of severe aortic stenosis.

Impact of residual coronary atherosclerosis on transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

OBJECTIVES: This study reports on the clinical effects of complete vs incompletely revascularized coronary artery disease on transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). BACKGROUND: There is a high prevalence of active coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients undergoing TAVR but preemptive revascularization remains controversial. METHODS: Patients were categorized into three cohorts: complete revascularization (CR), incomplete revascularization of a major epicardial artery (IR Major), and incomplete revascularization of a minor epicardial artery only (IR Minor). When feasible, SYNTAX scoring was performed for exploratory analysis. Analyses were performed using Cox proportional hazard models and Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: A total of 323 patients with active CAD were included. Adjusted outcomes showed that patients with IR Major had increased incidence of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) or revascularization compared with those in the CR cohort (HR 3.72, P = 0.048). No difference was noted in all-cause mortality or all-cause readmission rates. Exploratory secondary analysis with residual SYNTAX scores showed a significant interaction between disease burden and AMI/revascularization, as well as all-cause readmission. All-cause mortality remained unaffected based on residual SYNTAX scores. CONCLUSIONS: This is a retrospective single-center study reporting on pre-TAVR revascularization outcomes in patients with active CAD. In this analysis, we found that patients undergoing TAVR benefited from achieving complete revascularization to abate future incidence of AMI/revascularization. Despite this finding, all-cause mortality remained unaffected. Future efforts should focus on the role of functional assessment of the coronaries, as well as the long-term effects of complete revascularization in a larger patient cohort.

Risk Calculator to Predict 30-Day Readmission After Coronary Artery Bypass: A Strategic Decision Support Tool.

BACKGROUND: Re-admission is an important source of patient dissatisfaction and increased hospital costs. A simple calculator to determine the probability of re-admission may help guide patient dismissal planning. METHODS: Using the national readmissions database (NRD), we identified admissions for isolated primary coronary artery bypass (CABG) and stratified them according to 30-day readmission. Including pre, intra and postoperative variables, we prepared a logistic regression model to determine the probability for re-admission. The model was tested for reliability with boot-strapping and 10-fold cross-validation. RESULTS: From 135,699 procedures, 19,355 were readmitted at least once within 30days of dismissal. Patients who were readmitted were older (67±10 vs 65 ± 10 years, p<0.01), females (32% vs 24%; p<0.01) and had a higher Elixhauser comorbidity score (1.5±1.4 vs 1.1±1.2; p<0.01). Our final model (c- statistic=0.65) consisted of 16 pre and three postoperative factors. End-stage renal disease (OR 1.79 [1.57-2.04]) and length of stay>9days (OR 1.60 [1.52-1.68]) were most prominent indicators for readmission. Compared to Medicaid beneficiaries, those with private insurance (OR 0.62 [0.57-0.68]) and Medicare (OR 0.85 [0.79-0.92]) coverage were less likely to be readmitted. CONCLUSIONS: Our simple 30-days CABG readmission calculator can be used as a strategic tool to help reduce readmissions after coronary artery bypass surgery.

Minimally Invasive Approaches to Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: A Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Limited data exist studying the outcomes of the 2 minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (AVR) strategies-mini-sternotomy (AVR-st) and right anterior thoracotomy (AVR-th). We conducted an indirect meta-analysis to compare the outcomes of these minimally invasive approaches with each other and with conventional AVR (cAVR). METHODS: We Searched Medline, PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science in December 2017 for studies comparing AVR-st, AVR-th, and cAVR. Clinical outcomes were compared between cohorts with inverse weighted random effects modeling. Endpoints studied included hospital mortality, stroke, atrial fibrillation, cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time, and length of stay. RESULTS: A total of 19 studies (>10,000 pooled patients) met the inclusion criteria. Mortality (p = 0.06) and stroke (p = 0.15) were comparable between minimally invasive and conventional AVR. CPB times were longer with AVR-th versus cAVR (12.4 minutes [range, 5 to 19]; p < 0.01). In the AVR-th cohort, CPB duration was weakly inversely related to study size (p = 0.06). Atrial fibrillation was much less after AVR-th (odds ratio 0.47 [0.35 to 0.63]; p < 0.001). Hospital stay was significantly lower after minimally invasive surgery (0.8 [0.4 to 1.3] days; p < 0.01). AVR-th patients were dismissed 2.1 (1.6 to 2.7) days earlier than cAVR patients. CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive approaches to AVR yield excellent outcomes in high-volume centers. They reduce hospital stay and incidence of postoperative atrial fibrillation, and therefore should be considered in patients undergoing AVR. The operative approach should be selected according to surgeon's technical expertise and what is best for specific patient profile, however.