Minimally Invasive vs Open Coronary Surgery: A Multi-Institutional Analysis of Cost and Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Limited multi-institutional data evaluating minimally invasive cardiac surgery (MICS) coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) outcomes have raised concern for increased resource utilization compared with standard sternotomy. The purpose of this study was to assess short-term outcomes and resource utilization with MICS CABG in a propensity-matched regional cohort. METHODS: Isolated CABG patients (2012-2019) were extracted from a regional Society of Thoracic Surgeons database. Patients were stratified by MICS CABG vs open CABG via sternotomy, propensity-score matched 1:2 to balance baseline differences, and compared by univariate analysis. RESULTS: Of 26,255 isolated coronary artery bypass graft patients, 139 MICS CABG and 278 open CABG patients were well balanced after matching. There was no difference in the operative mortality rate (2.2% open vs 0.7% MICS CABG, P = .383) or major morbidity (7.9% open vs 7.2% MICS CABG, P = .795). However, open CABG patients received more blood products (22.2% vs 12.2%, P = .013), and had longer intensive care unit (45 vs 30 hours, P = .049) as well as hospital lengths of stay (7 vs 6 days, P = .005). Finally, median hospital cost was significantly higher in the open CABG group ($35,011 vs $27,906, P < .001) compared with MICS CABG. CONCLUSIONS: Open CABG via sternotomy and MICS CABG approaches are associated with similar, excellent perioperative outcomes. However, MICS CABG was associated with fewer transfusions, shorter length of stay, and ∼$7000 lower hospital cost, a superior resource utilization profile that improves patient care and lowers cost.

Cost of Thoracotomy Approach: An Analysis of the LATERAL Trial.

BACKGROUND: Less invasive techniques for left ventricular assist device implantation have been increasingly prevalent over past years and have been associated with improved clinical outcomes. The procedural economic impact of these techniques remains unknown. We sought to study and report economic outcomes associated with the thoracotomy implantation approach. METHODS: The LATERAL clinical trial evaluated the safety and efficacy of the thoracotomy approach for implantation of the HeartWare centrifugal-flow ventricular assist device system (HVAD). We collected UB-04 forms in parallel to the trial, allowing analysis of index hospitalization costs. All charges were converted to costs using hospital-specific cost-to-charge ratios and were subsequently compared with Medicare cost data for the same period (2015-2016). Because thoracotomy implants were off-label for all left ventricular assist devices during that period, the Medicare cohort was assumed to consist predominately of traditional sternotomy patients. RESULTS: Thoracotomy patients demonstrated decreased costs compared with sternotomy patients during the index hospitalization. Mean total index hospitalization costs for thoracotomy were $204,107 per patient, corresponding to 21.6% reduction (P < .001) and $56,385 savings per procedure compared with sternotomy. Across almost all cost categories, thoracotomy implants were less costly. CONCLUSIONS: In LATERAL, a clinical trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of the thoracotomy approach for HVAD, costs were lower than those reported in Medicare patient claims occurring over the same period. Because Medicare data can be presumed to consist of predominately sternotomy procedures, thoracotomy appears less expensive than traditional sternotomy.

Mini-Stern Trial: A randomized trial comparing mini-sternotomy to full median sternotomy for aortic valve replacement.

OBJECTIVE: Aortic valve replacement (AVR) can be performed either through full median sternotomy (FS) or upper mini-sternotomy (MS). The Mini-Stern trial aimed to establish whether MS leads to quicker postoperative recovery and shorter hospital stay after first-time isolated AVR. METHODS: This pragmatic, open-label, parallel randomized controlled trial (RCT) compared MS with FS for first-time isolated AVR in 2 United Kingdom National Health Service hospitals. Primary endpoints were duration of postoperative hospital stay and the time to fitness for discharge from hospital after AVR, analyzed in the intent-to-treat population. RESULTS: In this RCT, 222 patients were recruited and randomized (n = 118 in the MS group; n = 104 in the FS group). Compared with the FS group, the MS group had a longer hospital length of stay (mean, 9.5 days vs 8.6 days) and took longer to achieve fitness for discharge home (mean, 8.5 days vs 7.5 days). Adjusting for valve type, sex, and surgeon, hazard ratios (HRs) from Cox models did not show a statistically significant effect of MS (relative to FS) on either hospital stay (HR, 0.874; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.668-1.143; P = .3246) or time to fitness for discharge (HR, 0.907; 95% CI, 0.688-1.197; P value = .4914). During a mean follow-up of 760 days (745 days for the MS group and 777 days for the FS group), 12 patients (10%) in the MS group and 7 patients (7%) in the FS group died (HR, 1.871; 95% CI, 0.723-4.844; P = .1966). Average extra cost for MS was £1714 during the first 12 months after AVR. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with FS for AVR, MS did not result in shorter hospital stay, faster recovery, or improved survival and was not cost-effective. The MS approach is not superior to FS for performing AVR.

Automated Titanium Fasteners Versus Hand-Tied Knots: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: The relative benefits of automated titanium fasteners (LSI Solutions, Victor, NY) have not been examined in patients undergoing sternotomy. The aim of this study was to assess the time and cost required for suture fixation with the automated device versus conventional hand tying in sternotomy for mitral or tricuspid ring annuloplasty. METHODS: Fifty patients scheduled to undergo primary mitral or tricuspid, or both, ring annuloplasty-based valve repair operation by a single surgeon were randomly assigned to receive either conventional hand-tied knots or automated titanium fasteners, with 25 patients in each group. The primary outcome variable was the time required to affix the annuloplasty device to the valve annulus. RESULTS: The times taken to affix a mitral annuloplasty band or ring were 6.1 ± 0.9 min for manual tying versus 3.1 ± 0.4 min for automated fasteners (p < 0.0001); when calculated per annuloplasty stitch, the values were 22 ± 2 s versus 12 ± 1.1 s, respectively (p < 0.0001). The corresponding values for tricuspid annuloplasty were 4.2 ± 1.2 min (hand tying) versus 2.2 ± 0.3 min (automated fasteners) (p = 0.0005), and the times for each suture were 20 ± 2.1 s versus 13 ± 2 s, respectively (p = 0.0004). The use of the automated fastener had no significant impact on aortic cross-clamp time or cardiopulmonary bypass duration. Total cost associated with annuloplasty fixation with automated titanium fasteners (device cost in addition to operating room time cost) was significantly higher than with hand tying ($1,190 ± 374 vs $164 ± 60; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Using the automated fastener to facilitate annuloplasty fixation through a sternotomy resulted in a small procedural time savings (average of 10 s/stitch) that had no overall impact on cardiopulmonary bypass or cross-clamp times but added an average cost of $1,026 to the operation.

Robotic mitral valve operations by experienced surgeons are cost-neutral and durable at 1 year.

BACKGROUND: Robotic mitral valve surgery has potential advantages in patient satisfaction and 30-day outcome. Cost concerns and repair durability limit wider adoption of robotic technology. This study examined detailed cost differences between robotic and sternotomy techniques in relation to outcomes and durability following robotic mitral program initiation. METHODS: Between April 2013 and October 2015, 30-day and 1-year outcomes of 328 consecutive patients undergoing robotic or sternotomy mitral valve repair or replacement by experienced surgeons were examined. Multivariable logistic regression informed propensity matching to derive a cohort of 182 patients. Echocardiographic follow-up was completed at 1 year in all robotic patients. Detailed activity-based cost accounting was applied to include direct, semidirect, and indirect costs with special respect to robotic depreciation, maintenance, and supplies. A quantitative analysis of all hospital costs was applied directly to each patient encounter for comparative financial analyses. RESULTS: Mean predicted risk of mortality was similar in both the robotic (n = 91) and sternotomy (n = 91) groups (0.9% vs 0.8%; P > .431). The total costs of robotic mitral operations were similar to those of sternotomy ($27,662 vs $28,241; P = .273). Early direct costs were higher in the robotic group. There was a marked increase in late indirect cost with the sternotomy cohort related to increased length of stay, transfusion requirements, and readmission rates. Robotic repair technique was associated with no echocardiographic recurrence greater than trace to only mild regurgitation at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: Experienced mitral surgeons can initiate a robotic program in a cost-neutral manner that maintains clinical outcome integrity as well as repair durability.

Right Anterolateral Minithoracotomy versus Median Sternotomy Approach for Resection of Left Atrial Myxoma.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive surgery has become the standard approach for several cardiac diseases. In this retrospective study, we compared right anterolateral minithoracotomy (RALT) with standard median sternotomy (SMS) for resection of left atrial myxoma (LAM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: From January 2009 to June 2015, the clinical data of patients who underwent RALT (n = 30) and SMS (n = 36) for resection of LAM in our hospital were collected. The preoperative clinical data and operative results were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in aortic cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass time between the two groups. The total incision length was significantly shorter in RALT group compared with SMS group (p < 0.001). For RALT and SMS groups, respectively, the intensive care unit length of stay was 29.2 ± 6.5 versus 43.5 ± 6.9 hours (p < 0.001), and the postoperative hospital length of stay was 5 days (interquartile range [IQR]: 4-6) versus 8 days (IQR: 7-10) (p < 0.001). The total cost in RALT group was 27,000 RMB (IQR: 25,000-29,000) versus 33,000 RMB (IQR: 31,000-35,000) in SMS group (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in mortality and postoperative complications between the two groups. CONCLUSION: RALT approach for LAM resection can be performed safely with favorable cosmetic outcome, accepted clinical results, and lower cost. It should be considered as a promising alternative to SMS and merit additional study.

The economic value of rapid deployment aortic valve replacement via full sternotomy.

AIM: To compare the economic value of EDWARDS INTUITY Elite™ (EIE) valve system for rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement (RDAVR) in a full sternotomy (FS) approach (EIE-FS-RDAVR) versus FS-AVR using conventional stented bioprosthesis. DATA & METHODS: A simulation model to compare each treatment's 30-day inpatient utilization and complication rates utilized: clinical end points obtained from the TRANSFORM trial patient subset (EIE-FS-RDAVR) and a best evidence review of the published literature (FS-AVR); and costs from the Premier database and published literature. RESULTS: EIE-FS-RDAVR costs $800 less than FS-AVR per surgery episode attributable to lowered complication rates and utilization. Combined with the lower mortality, EIE-FS-RDAVR was a superior (dominant) technology versus FS-AVR. CONCLUSION: This preliminary investigation of EIE-FS-RDAVR versus conventional FS-AVR found the EIE valve offered superior economic value over a 30-day period. Real-world analyses with additional long-term follow-up are needed to evaluate if this result can be replicated over a longer timeframe.

Manubrium-limited ministernotomy versus conventional sternotomy for aortic valve replacement (MAVRIC): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Aortic valve replacement is one of the most common cardiac surgical procedures performed worldwide. Conventional aortic valve replacement surgery is performed via a median sternotomy; the sternum is divided completely from the sternal notch to the xiphisternum. Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement, using a new technique called manubrium-limited ministernotomy, divides only the manubrium from the sternal notch to 1 cm below the manubrio-sternal junction. More than one third of patients undergoing conventional sternotomy develop clinically significant bleeding requiring post-operative red blood cell transfusion. Case series data suggest a potentially clinically significant difference in red blood cell transfusion requirements between the two techniques. Given the implications for National Health Service resources and patient outcomes, a definitive trial is needed. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a single-centre, single-blind, randomised controlled trial comparing aortic valve replacement surgery using manubrium-limited ministernotomy (intervention) and conventional median sternotomy (usual care). Two hundred and seventy patients will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio between the intervention and control arms, stratified by baseline logistic EuroSCORE and haemoglobin value. Patients will be followed for 12 weeks from discharge following their index operation. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients who receive a red blood cell transfusion post-operatively within 7 days of surgery. Secondary outcomes include red blood cell and blood product transfusions, blood loss, re-operation rates, sternal wound pain, quality of life, markers of inflammatory response, hospital discharge, health care utilisation, cost and cost effectiveness and adverse events. DISCUSSION: This is the first trial to examine aortic valve replacement via manubrium-limited ministernotomy versus conventional sternotomy when comparing red blood cell transfusion rates following surgery. Surgical trials present significant challenges; strengths of this trial include a rigorous research design, standardised surgery performed by experienced consultant cardiothoracic surgeons, an agreed anaesthetic regimen, patient blinding and consultant-led patient recruitment. The MAVRIC trial will demonstrate that complex surgical trials can be delivered to exemplary standards and provide the community with the knowledge required to inform future care for patients requiring aortic valve replacement surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) ISRCTN29567910 . Registered on 3 February 2014.

Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery is associated with equivalent cost and shorter hospital stay when compared with traditional sternotomy.

OBJECTIVE: Mitral valve surgery is increasingly performed through minimally invasive approaches. There are limited data regarding the cost of minimally invasive mitral valve surgery. Moreover, there are no data on the specific costs associated with mitral valve surgery. We undertook this study to compare the costs (total and subcomponent) of minimally invasive mitral valve surgery relative to traditional sternotomy. METHODS: All isolated mitral valve repairs performed in our health system from March 2012 through September 2013 were analyzed. To ensure like sets of patients, only those patients who underwent isolated mitral valve repairs with preoperative Society of Thoracic Surgeons scores of less than 4 were included in this study. A total of 159 patients were identified (sternotomy, 68; mini, 91). Total incurred direct cost was obtained from hospital financial records. RESULTS: Analysis demonstrated no difference in total cost (operative and postoperative) of mitral valve repair between mini and sternotomy ($25,515 ± $7598 vs $26,049 ± $11,737; P = .74). Operative costs were higher for the mini cohort, whereas postoperative costs were significantly lower. Postoperative intensive care unit and total hospital stays were both significantly shorter for the mini cohort. There were no differences in postoperative complications or survival between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery can be performed with overall equivalent cost and shorter hospital stay relative to traditional sternotomy. There is greater operative cost associated with minimally invasive mitral valve surgery that is offset by shorter intensive care unit and hospital stays.

Is a minimally invasive approach for mitral valve surgery more cost-effective than median sternotomy?

A best evidence topic in cardiac surgery was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was: is a minimally invasive approach for mitral valve surgery more cost-effective than median sternotomy? Altogether, 51 studies were found using the reported search, of which 7 represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. The authors, journal, date and country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes and results of these papers were tabulated. No randomized controlled trials have assessed the cost-effectiveness of less invasive mitral valve surgery compared with median sternotomy, with the best evidence coming from retrospective and propensity-matched analyses. Five studies compared minithoracotomy versus sternotomy, one compared minimally invasive port-access surgery versus sternotomy and one compared video-assisted minithoracotomy versus sternotomy. The use of a minithoracotomy or a minimally invasive port-access approach for mitral valve surgery resulted in significant reductions in costs of cardiac imaging and laboratory tests, lower use of blood products, fewer perioperative infections, faster recovery, shorter hospital length of stay, fewer requirements for rehabilitation and lower readmission rates in the following postoperative year. We conclude that a minimally invasive approach for mitral valve surgery is safe, effective and significantly more cost-effective than median sternotomy.

Retrospective comparison of costs between medical and surgical treatment of canine pyothorax.

This study compared costs of treating dogs with pyothorax medically versus surgically. Medical records from the University of Wisconsin School of Veterinary Medicine were searched for cases of pyothorax that underwent either medical or surgical treatment. Patients undergoing surgery were subdivided into early (ES; < 48 h) and late (LS; > 48 h) surgery groups. Costs and length of stay were compared between treatment groups. Treatment costs were adjusted for inflation. Nineteen dogs were included in analysis; 7 in the medical group (MG), 5 in the ES group, and 7 in the LS group. Total costs were significantly lower in the MG than in the LS group. Total costs were less for the MG than the ES group, and for ES than LS, but the differences did not achieve significance. Preoperative costs were higher in the LS than the ES group. We conclude that surgery for canine pyothorax is less costly if pursued earlier than later.

Comparaison rétrospective des coûts entre le traitement médical et chirurgical d'un pyothorax canin. Cette étude a comparé les coûts de traiter les chiens souffrant d'un pyothorax par voie médicale par opposition à une voie chirurgicale. Une recherche a été effectuée dans les dossiers médicaux du College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Wisconsin pour trouver des cas de pyothorax où les animaux avaient subi soit un traitement médical ou chirurgical. Les patients subissant une chirurgie ont été subdivisés en des groupes de chirurgie précoce (ES; < 48 h) et tardive (LS; > 48 h). Les coûts et la durée du séjour ont été comparés entre les groupes de traitement. Les coûts de traitement ont été ajustés pour l'inflation. Dix-neuf chiens étaient inclus dans l'analyse; sept dans le groupe médical (MG), cinq dans le groupe ES et sept dans le groupe LS. Les coûts totaux étaient significativement inférieurs dans le MG par rapport au groupe LS. Les coûts totaux étaient inférieurs pour le groupe MG par rapport au groupe ES et pour le groupe ES par rapport au groupe LS, mais les différences n'étaient pas significatives. Les coûts préopératoires étaient supérieurs dans le groupe LS par rapport au groupe ES. Nous tirons la conclusion que le coût de la chirurgie pour le pyothorax canin est inférieur si la chirurgie est réalisée tôt.(Traduit par Isabelle Vallières).

Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement provides equivalent outcomes at reduced cost compared with conventional aortic valve replacement: A real-world multi-institutional analysis.

BACKGROUND: Several single-center studies have reported excellent outcomes with minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (mini-AVR). Although criticized as requiring more operative time and complexity, mini-AVR is increasingly performed. We compared contemporary outcomes and cost of mini-AVR versus conventional AVR in a multi-institutional regional cohort. We hypothesized that mini-AVR provides equivalent outcomes to conventional AVR without increased cost. METHODS: Patient records for primary isolated AVR (2011-2013) were extracted from a regional, multi-institutional Society of Thoracic Surgeons database and stratified by conventional versus mini-AVR, performed by either partial sternotomy or right thoracotomy. To compare similar patients, a 1:1 propensity-matched cohort was performed after adjusting for surgeon; operative year; and Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score, including age and risk factors (n = 289 in each group). Differences in outcomes and cost were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 1341 patients underwent primary isolated AVR, of which 442 (33%) underwent mini-AVR at 17 hospitals. Mortality, stroke, renal failure, and other major complications were equivalent between groups. Mini-AVR was associated with decreased ventilator time (5 vs 6 hours; P = .04) and decreased blood product transfusion (25% vs 32%; P = .04). A greater percentage of mini-AVR patients were discharged within 4 days of the operation (15.2% vs 4.8%; P < .001). Consequently, total hospital costs were lower in the mini-AVR group ($36,348 vs $38,239; P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Mortality and morbidity outcomes of mini-AVR are equivalent to conventional AVR. Mini-AVR is associated with decreased ventilator time, blood product use, early discharge, and reduced total hospital cost. In contemporary clinical practice, mini-AVR is safe and cost-effective.

Minimally Invasive Aortic Valve Replacement: Cost-Benefit Analysis of Ministernotomy Versus Minithoracotomy Approach.

BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE STUDY: Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement via ministernotomy (ministernotomy-AVR) or minithoracotomy (minithoracotomy-AVR) is gaining popularity. To date, a direct comparison of ministernotomy-AVR versus minithoracotomy-AVR is lacking. The study aim was to compare these two procedures from a cost-benefit perspective. METHODS: Eight reports from the United States were selected from amongst 33,494 literature citations based on sample size and data completeness. Perioperative variables were collected for each surgical approach. Fixed and variable costs were estimated as cost per case in excess of full sternotomy AVR procedures. RESULTS: Ministernotomy-AVR patients were of a significantly lower mean age (59.8 years versus 67.9 years), ejection fraction (50.4-51.6% versus 56.1-57.8%), shorter cardiopulmonary bypass time (97.2 min versus 125.6 min) and cross-clamp time (69.9 min versus 87.9 min), a lower rate of blood transfusion (25.9% versus 64.4%), and a shorter length of hospital stay (5.7 versus 6.2 days). There were no significant inter-group differences in 30-day mortality, conversion to sternotomy, neurologic events, arrhythmia, wound infection, or postoperative bleeding. Assuming a volume of 50 cases per year, the added operative cost per case for a minithoracotomy-AVR was US$ 4,254 compared to US$ 290 for a ministernotomy-AVR. The added costs per case, assuming 200 cases per year, were US$ 4,209 and US$ 290, respectively. A minithoracotomy-AVR program performing 50 cases per year adds US$ 1,063,665 of operative costs over five years, compared to US$ 72,500 for a ministernotomy-AVR program. CONCLUSION: The present analysis suggested that the clinical benefits of ministernotomy-AVR are comparable or better than those of minithoracotomy-AVR, and at lower costs. Healthcare delivery organizations should consider the results of cost-benefit examinations when developing surgical valve replacement programs.

Minithoracotomy for mitral valve repair improves inpatient and postdischarge economic savings.

OBJECTIVE: Small series of thoracotomy for mitral valve repair have demonstrated clinical benefit. This multi-institutional administrative database analysis compares outcomes of thoracotomy and sternotomy approaches for mitral repair. METHODS: The Premier database was queried from 2007 to 2011 for mitral repair hospitalizations. Premier contains billing, cost, and coding data from more than 600 US hospitals, totaling 25 million discharges. Thoracotomy and sternotomy approaches were identified through expert rules; robotics were excluded. Propensity matching on baseline characteristics was performed. Regression analysis of surgical approach on outcomes and costs was modeled. RESULTS: Expert rule analysis positively identified thoracotomy in 847 and sternotomy in 566. Propensity matching created 2 groups of 367. Mortalities were similar (thoracotomy 1.1% vs sternotomy 1.9%). Sepsis and other infections were significantly lower with thoracotomy (1.1% vs 4.4%). After adjustment for hospital differences, thoracotomy carried a 17.2% lower hospitalization cost (-$8289) with a 2-day stay reduction. Readmission rates were significantly lower with thoracotomy (26.2% vs 35.7% at 30 days and 31.6% vs 44.1% at 90 days). Thoracotomy was more common in southern and northeastern hospitals (63% vs 37% and 64% vs 36%, respectively), teaching hospitals (64% vs 36%) and larger hospitals (>600 beds, 78% vs 22%). CONCLUSIONS: Relative to sternotomy, thoracotomy for mitral repairs provides similar mortality, less morbidity, fewer infections, shorter stay, and significant cost savings during primary admission. The markedly lower readmission rates for thoracotomy will translate into additional institutional cost savings when a penalty on hospitals begins under the Affordable Care Act's Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program.

Right anterior thoracotomy aortic valve replacement is associated with less cost than sternotomy-based approaches: a multi-institution analysis of 'real world' data.

BACKGROUND: Large institutional analyses demonstrating outcomes of right anterior mini-thoracotomy (RAT) for isolated aortic valve replacement (isoAVR) do not exist. In this study, a group of cardiac surgeons who routinely perform minimally invasive isoAVR analyzed a cross-section of US hospital records in order to analyze outcomes of RAT as compared to sternotomy. METHODS: The Premier database was queried from 2007-2011 for clinical and cost data for patients undergoing isoAVR. This de-identified database contains billing, hospital cost, and coding data from >600 US facilities with information from >25 million inpatient discharges. Expert rules were developed to identify patients with RAT and those with any sternal incision (aStern). Propensity matching created groups adjusted for patient differences. The impact of surgical approach on outcomes and costs was modeled using regression analysis and, where indicated, adjusting for hospital size and geographical differences. RESULTS: AVR was performed in 27,051 patients. Analysis identified isoAVR by RAT (n = 1572) and by aStern (n = 3962). Propensity matching created two groups of 921 patients. RAT was more likely performed in southern hospitals (63% vs 36%; p < 0.01), teaching hospitals (66% vs 58%; p < 0.01) and larger hospitals (47% vs 30%; p < 0.01). There was significantly less blood product cost associated with RAT ($1381 vs $1912; p < 0.001). After adjusting for hospital differences, RAT was associated with lower cost than aStern ($38,769 vs $42,656; p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes analyses can be performed from hospital administrative collective databases. This real world analysis demonstrates comparable outcomes and less cost and ICU time with RAT for AVR.

Impact of vacuum-assisted closure therapy on outcomes of sternal wound dehiscence†.

OBJECTIVES: Sternal wound dehiscence (SWD) after cardiac surgery is a rare but serious condition associated with considerable costs and morbidity. We sought to evaluate the results of the introduction of vacuum-assisted closure (VAC) therapy in the management of sternal wound dehiscence, compared with those of previous conventional treatments. METHODS: We retrospectively collected 7148 patients who underwent cardiac surgery at our institution between January 2002 and June 2012. A total of 152 (2.1%) patients had a sternal wound dehiscence: 107 were treated with conventional treatments (Group A) and 45 were managed with VAC therapy (Group B). Patients were stratified according to preoperative risk factors and type of sternal wound dehiscence (superficial or deep; infected or not) and compared by means of a propensity-matched analysis. A cost analysis was also performed. RESULTS: Forty-five patients of each group matched for all preoperative risk factors and type of sternal wound dehiscence. SWD-related mortality rate was significantly lower in Group B (11 vs 0%; P = 0.05). Incidence of mediastinitis (P < 0.0001), sepsis (P = 0.04), delayed SWD infection (P = 0.05), other complication (P = 0.05), surgical sternal revision (P = 0.04) and surgical superficial revision (P < 0.0001) were all significantly lower in Group B. Mean patient cost was 31 106€ in Group A and 24 383€ in Group B, thus achieving a mean saving of 6723€ per patient. CONCLUSIONS: In our experience, the use of VAC therapy for the management of SWD was considerably effective in decreasing mortality (SWD related), incidence of complications and need for surgical procedures; thus, leading to a significant reduction of costs.

The minithoracotomy approach: a safe and effective alternative for heart valve surgery.

Despite criticisms over the last decade, heart valve surgery through right anterior minithoracotomy (MT) proved excellent short-term and long-term-term results, becoming a feasible and popular alternative to the sternotomy approach. The rapid development and refinements of techniques have led to MT valve surgery being considered safe, effective, and durable. Minithoracotomy has been demonstrated to be a valid cost-effective and cost-saving strategy for valve surgery, being associated with reduced morbidity and mortality. Tangible benefits include less pain, faster postoperative recovery, and better cosmetic results. As a result, MT has been increasingly used as a routine approach in many centers for both aortic and mitral valve surgery.