Long-Term Outcomes of Sternal-Sparing Versus Sternotomy Approaches for Mitral Valve Repair: Meta-Analysis of Reconstructed Time-to-Event Data.

OBJECTIVE: Since there are concerns about the durability of mitral valve repair (MVRp) with minimally invasive techniques in patients with mitral regurgitation (MR), we aimed to evaluate the long-term outcomes of these sternal-sparing approaches when compared with conventional approaches with sternotomy in patients undergoing MVRp. METHODS: We performed a systematic review according to a preestablished protocol and performed a pooled analysis of Kaplan-Meier-derived reconstructed time-to-event data from studies with longer follow-up comparing sternal-sparing versus sternotomy approaches for MVRp. Our outcomes of interest were survival, freedom from recurrent MR, and freedom from reoperation. RESULTS: Eleven studies met our eligibility criteria comprising 7,596 patients with follow-up (sternal sparing, n = 4,246; sternotomy, n = 3,350). Patients who underwent sternal-sparing MVRp had a significantly lower risk of mortality over time compared with patients who underwent MVRp with sternotomy (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.29, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.23 to 0.36, P < 0.001) in the overall analysis. However, we found no statistically significant difference between the groups in the sensitivity analysis with adjusted populations (HR = 0.85, 95% CI: 0.63 to 1.15, P = 0.301). Regarding the outcomes freedom from recurrent MR and freedom from reoperation, we found no statistically significant differences between the groups in the follow-up in both overall and sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: In comparison with MVRp with sternotomy approaches, sternal-sparing MVRp was not associated with worse outcomes in terms of survival, recurrent MR, and reoperations over time.

Conventional Versus Minimally Invasive Aortic Valve Replacement Surgery: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Meta-Regression.

Objective: To assess the potential benefits of minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MIAVR) compared with conventional AVR (CAVR) by examining short-term outcomes. Methods: A systematic search identified randomized trials comparing MIAVR with CAVR. To assess study limitations and quality of evidence, we used the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and GRADE and performed random-effects meta-analysis. We used meta-regression and sensitivity analysis to explore reasons for diversity. Results: Thirteen studies (1,303 patients) were included. For the comparison of MIAVR and CAVR, the risk of bias was judged low or unclear and the quality of evidence ranged from very low to moderate. No significant difference was observed in mortality, stroke, acute kidney failure, infectious outcomes, cardiac events, intubation time, intensive care unit stay, reoperation for bleeding, and blood transfusions. Blood loss (mean difference [MD] = -130.58 mL, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -216.34 to -44.82, I2 = 89%) and hospital stay (MD = -0.93 days, 95% CI = -1.62 to -0.23, I2 = 81%) were lower with MIAVR. There were shorter aortic cross-clamp (MD = 5.99 min, 95% CI = 0.99 to 10.98, I2 = 93%) and cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) times (MD = 7.75 min, 95% CI = 0.27 to 15.24, I2 = 94%) in the CAVR group. In meta-regression analysis, we found that age was the variable with the greatest influence on heterogeneity. Conclusions: MIAVR seems to be an excellent alternative to CAVR, reducing hospital stay and incidence of hemorrhagic events. Despite significantly greater aortic cross-clamp and CPB times with MIAVR, this did not translate into adverse effects, with no changes in the results found with CAVR.