RESUMO
(1) Background: The development of totally endoscopic aortic valve replacement has the potential to enhance clinical results compared to mini-sternotomy. To our knowledge, no comparison between these two techniques has been conducted before. Therefore, the objective of this retrospective study is to examine the results after both totally endoscopic and mini-sternotomy approaches. (2) Methods: This study covered all elective patients who underwent isolated aortic valve replacement, either totally endoscopically (n = 392) or through a mini-sternotomy (n = 323), between 2013 and 2021. Multivariable analysis was used to account for baseline variations between the two groups. All data were retrospectively gathered and analysed. The primary objective of this study was the one-year mortality rate. (3) Results: The mean aortic cross-clamping and cardiopulmonary bypass times were significantly longer in the totally endoscopic approach (cross-clamping: 43.73 ± 13.71 min and 61.93 ± 16.76 min, p-value < 0.001; CPB time: 64.86 ± 23.02 min and 93.23 ± 23.67 min, p-value < 0.001). However, perioperative bleeding was lower (706.40 ± 542.77 mL and 444.50 ± 515.84 mL, p-value < 0.001). The primary objective, one-year survival, did not significantly differ between both groups (Mini-AVR: 94.5% vs TEAVR: 93.3%, p-value = 0.520). (4) Conclusions: Our results show that totally endoscopic aortic valve replacement has comparable clinical results compared to aortic valve replacement through mini-sternotomy.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The optimal revascularization strategy remains uncertain in multivessel coronary artery disease (MVCAD). The durability of the surgical grafts should be weighed against the decreased invasiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR), a combination of PCI and surgery, could be a feasible alternative. This study aimed to investigate the occurrence of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) and all-cause mortality after both endoscopic coronary artery bypass grafting (Endo-CABG) and the HCR procedure. METHODS: In this single-center retrospective observational study, 347 consecutive patients have been subjected to an Endo-CABG procedure, of which 103 underwent HCR between January 2016 and January 2018. A propensity score matching analysis was performed to match 103 Endo-CABG alone patients to the 103 HCR patients. The Endo-CABG procedure was performed through 3 endoscopic ports (5 mm) in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th intercostal space and a utility port of 3 cm. RESULTS: In both the HCR and matched endo-CABG alone group, the 30-day mortality was acceptable (0% in the HCR group and 1.94% in the matched Endo-CABG alone group, p = 0.155). Additionally, the occurrence of MACCE after a mean follow-up of 1188 ± 538 days was similar in both groups (9.71% and 11.65% for the HCR and matched Endo-CABG alone group, respectively, p = 0.652). Still, the long-term all-cause mortality over this period was significantly higher in the matched Endo-CABG alone group (2.91% after the HCR procedure and 11.65% after matched Endo-CABG alone, p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: HCR has some advantages over Endo-CABG alone regarding the all-cause mortality, cross-clamping time, intensive care unit, and hospital length of stay. Therefore, HCR may be a suitable alternative therapy for patients with MVCAD.