Comparative effects of minimally invasive approaches vs. conventional for obese patients undergoing aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive approaches like mini-thoracotomy and mini-sternotomy for Aortic Valve Replacement (AVR) showed impressive outcomes. However, their advantages for obese patients are questionable. We aimed in this network meta-analysis to compare three surgical approaches: Full sternotomy (FS), Mini-sternotomy (MS), and Mini-thoracotomy (MT) for obese patients undergoing AVR. METHODS: We followed the PRISMA extension for this network meta-analysis. PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane searched through March 2023 for relevant articles. The analysis was performed using R version 4.2.3. RESULTS: Out of 344, 8 articles met the criteria with 1392 patients. The main outcomes assessed were perioperative mortality, re-exploration, atrial fibrillation, renal failure, ICU stay, hospital stay, cross-clamp time, and bypass time. In favor of MS, the length of ICU stay and hospital stay was significantly lower than for FS [MD -0.84, 95%CI (-1.26; -0.43)], and [MD -2.56, 95%CI (-3.90; -1.22)], respectively. Regarding peri-operative mortality, FS showed a significantly higher risk compared to MS [RR 2.28, 95%CI (1.01;5.16)]. Also, patients who underwent minimally invasive approaches; MT and MS, required less need of re-exploration compared to FS [RR 0.10, 95%CI (0.02;0.45)], and [RR 0.33, 95%CI (0.14;0.79)], respectively. However, Intraoperative timings; including aortic cross-clamp, and cardiopulmonary bypass time, were significantly lower with FS than for MS [MD -9.16, 95%CI (-1.88; -16.45)], [MD -9.61, 95%CI (-18.64; -0.59)], respectively. CONCLUSION: Our network meta-analysis shows that minimally invasive approaches offer some advantages for obese patients undergoing AVR over full sternotomy. Suggesting that these approaches might be considered more beneficial alternatives for obese patients undergoing AVR.

Propensity matched analysis of minimally invasive versus conventional isolated aortic valve replacement.

OBJECTIVE: To analyse the early and mid-term outcome of patients undergoing conventional aortic valve replacement (AVR) versus minimally invasive via hemi-sternotomy aortic valve replacement (MIAVR). METHODS: A single centre retrospective study involving 653 patients who underwent isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR) either via conventional AVR (n = 516) or MIAVR (n = 137) between August 2015 and March 2020. Using pre-operative characteristics, patients were propensity matched (PM) to produce 114 matched pairs. Assessment of peri-operative outcomes, early and mid-term survival and echocardiographic parameters was performed. RESULTS: The mean age of the PM conventional AVR group was 71.5 (±8.9) years and the number of male (n = 57) and female (n = 57) patients were equal. PM MIAVR group mean age was 71.1 (±9.5) years, and 47% of patients were female (n = 54) and 53% male (n = 60). Median follow-up for PM conventional AVR and MIAVR patients was 3.4 years (minimum 0, maximum 4.8 years) and 3.4 years (minimum 0, maximum 4.8 years), respectively. Larger sized aortic valve prostheses were inserted in the MIAVR group (median 23, IQR = 4) versus conventional AVR group (median 21, IQR = 2; p = 0.02, SMD = 0.34). Cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time was longer with MIAVR (94.4 ± 19.5 minutes) compared to conventional AVR (83.1 ± 33.3; p = 0.0001, SMD = 0.41). Aortic cross-clamp (AoX) time was also longer in MIAVR (71.6 ± 16.5 minutes) compared to conventional AVR (65.0 ± 52.8; p = 0.0001, SMD = 0.17). There were no differences in the early post-operative complications and mortality between the two groups. Follow-up echocardiographic data showed significant difference in mean aortic valve gradients between conventional AVR and MIAVR groups (17.3 ± 8.2 mmHg vs 13.0 ± 5.1 mmHg, respectively; p = 0.01, SMD = -0.65). There was no significant difference between conventional AVR and MIAVR in mid-term survival at 3 years (88.6% vs 92.1%; log-rank test p = 0.31). CONCLUSION: Despite the longer CPB and AoX times in the MIAVR group, there was no significant difference in early complications, mortality and mid-term survival between MIAVR and conventional AVR.

Minimally invasive versus conventional aortic valve replacement: The network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Outcome comparisons after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) with minimally invasive approaches including mini-sternotomy (MS) and right mini-thoracotomy (RMT) and full sternotomy (FS) have been conflicting. Furthermore, the synthesis of mid-term mortality has not been performed. METHODS: MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched through April 2022 to identify propensity score matched (PSM) studies or randomized controlled trial (RCT) which compared outcomes following SAVR among three incisional approaches: FS, MS, or RMT. The network analysis was performed to compare these approaches with random effects model. Mid-term mortality was defined as 1-year mortality. RESULTS: A total of 42 studies met the inclusion criteria enrolling 14,925 patients. RCT and PSM were performed in 13 and 29 studies, respectively. The operative mortality was significantly lower with MS compared to FS (risk ratio [RR]: 0.60, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.41-0.90, p = .01, I2 = 25.8%) or RMT (RR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.27-0.97, p = .03, I2 = 25.8%). RMT had significantly higher risk of reoperation for bleeding compared to MS (RR: 1.65, 95% CI: 1.18-2.30, p = .003, I2 = 0%). Hospital length of stay was significantly shorter with MS compared to FS (mean difference: -0.89 days, 95% CI: -1.58 to -0.2, p = .01, I2 = 95.5%) while it was equivocal between FS and RMT. The mid-term mortality was similar among the three approaches. CONCLUSIONS: While mid-term mortality was comparable among approaches, MS may be a safe and potentially more effective approach than FS and RMT for SAVR in the short term.

Mini-sternotomy versus full sternotomy for isolated aortic valve replacement: A single-center experience.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive approaches to isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR) are well-described and widely utilized. While there are numerous proposed benefits, there is limited literature describing significant morbidity or mortality benefits for minimally invasive isolated AVR resulting in hesitancy in its universal adoption. In this retrospective study, we compare the 5-year outcomes of patients undergoing isolated AVR via full sternotomy (FS) or mini-sternotomy (MS). METHODS: 756 patients underwent isolated AVR between 2014 and 2019. Propensity matching resulted in 142 matched pairs that received either FS or MS. The primary outcome was mortality during the follow-up period. Secondary outcomes included intraoperative variables and postoperative morbidity. RESULTS: Intraoperative variables including total operative, cardiopulmonary bypass, and aortic cross-clamp times did not differ significantly between groups. Postoperative mortality was similar between the matched groups with nonsignificant differences at 30 days (2.12% vs. 1.4%, p = .657), 1 year (4.9% vs. 2.1%, p = .0.223), and 5 years (7.5% vs. 3.5%, p = .174). Rates of postoperative morbidity were comparable between groups with no significant differences. CONCLUSION: This study examined the long-term outcomes of propensity-matched patients undergoing isolated AVR via FS or MS and identified no significant differences in outcomes over a 5-year follow-up period. The decision for surgical approach is multifactorial and should be decided on a case-by-case basis taking into consideration patient anatomy, surgeon experience, and comfort, as well as patient preference.

In search of optimal cardioplegia for minimally invasive valve surgery.

Cardioplegic solutions are used in cardiac surgery to achieve controlled cardiac arrest during operations, making surgery safer. Cardioplegia can either be blood or crystalloid based, with perceived pros and cons of each type. Whilst it is known that cardioplegia causes cardiac arrest, there is debate over which cardioplegic solution provides the highest degree of myocardial protection during arrest. Myocardial damage is measured post-operatively by biomarkers such as serum TnT, TnI or CK-MB. It is known that the outcomes of minimally invasive valve surgery are comparable to full sternotomy valve operations. Despite there being a wide diversity in use of different cardioplegic solutions across the world, this comprehensive literature review found no superiority of one cardioplegic solution over the other for myocardial protection during minimally invasive valve procedures.

Minimal access compared to sternotomy for aortic root and arch surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Partial upper sternotomy is an established technique for aortic valve surgery in numerous centers. Based on the favorable results, this access can be extended for more complex procedures. We assessed the outcomes of aortic root and arch surgery through partial versus full sternotomy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From January 2013 to December 2020, 100 patients underwent proximal aortic surgery. The minimal access approach was used in 73 patients. Operative variables and outcomes were retrospectively analyzed and compared between both groups. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in cross-clamping and extracorporeal circulation times, as well as no difference in postoperative acute renal failure, stroke, myocardial infarction, and re-exploration for bleeding. However, there was a significant difference in favor of partial upper sternotomy in red blood cell transfusion (0 vs. 234 mL; p = 0.01), postoperative drainage volume (300 vs. 750 mL; p < 0.001), ventilation time (median 3 vs. 24 h; p < 0.001), sepsis (1 [1.4%] vs. 4 [14.8%]; p = 0.02), intensive care unit (median 2 vs. 4 days; p = 0.002) and hospital stay (median 7 vs. 10 days; p < 0.001). Only one patient required intraoperative conversion due to massive bleeding. There was no difference in 30-day mortality between both groups. CONCLUSION: The partial upper sternotomy approach is safe and feasible for aortic root and arch surgery with morbidity and mortality rates similar to full sternotomy, with the advantages of less blood loss and transfusions need, faster extubation, and shorter length of hospital stay.

CARDIOPULMONARY BYPASS IN PREGNANCY. A SINGLE-CENTER EXPERIENCE.

OBJECTIVE: The aim: Presentation of a single-center experience of cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) in pregnant women with critical cardiac pathology. The possibility of minimally invasive technique in this group of patients were presented. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Materials and methods: The present study included 19 cases of multidisciplinary care with CPB surgery in pregnant women in single center from December 2013 to December 2020. 8 patients underwent J-form median mini-sternotomy. Maternal and neonatal outcomes depending on the type of surgery (urgent or elective) were reviewed. RESULTS: Results: There were no negative maternal consequences; there were 4 perinatal losses (21%): three after urgent and one after elective interventions. All other pregnancies (n=15) finished successfully with the birth of healthy newborns. We compared some values in two groups (urgent and elective) of patients who underwent CPB surgery during pregnancy. Despite the variability in some parameters the difference between the groups was not significant. Follow-up was from 5 to 72 months (39.7±16.9) without negative consequences. CONCLUSION: Conclusions: Multidisciplinary team management is an effective strategy for pregnant women with cardiac pathology. Elective cardiac surgery in expert centers during pregnancy is a safe and effective option. Urgent CPB cardiac surgery during pregnancy increases the risk for the fetus. J-form median mini-sternotomy is a good option during pregnancy in high-experienced centers.

Total thoracoscopic repair of ventricular septal defect: A single-center experience.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the safety and efficacy of total thoracoscopic repair of ventricular septal defects (VSD). We compared clinical outcomes of VSD via a total thoracoscopic approach with those of mini-sternotomy. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed clinical data from patients with VSD from 2012 to January 2019. According to the surgical pattern, they were divided into two groups: the total thoracoscopic surgery group (36 patients, 27 females, aged 29 ± 9.52 years), and a mini-sternotomy group (31 patients, 12 females, aged 28 ± 8.67 years). RESULTS: There were no deaths in either group. In the thoracoscopic group, cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time and aortic cross-clamping (ACC) time were significantly longer than those of the mini-sternotomy group (CPB time: 112 ± 23.16 min vs. 78 ± 37.90 min, respectively, p < .001; ACC time: 65 ± 19.94 min vs. 50 ± 24.90 min, respectively, p < .001). postoperative hospital stay time (5.11 ± 2.48 days vs. 5.90 ± 6.27 days, p = .488) and chest drainage (139.86 ± 111.71 ml vs. 196.13 ± 147.34 ml, p = .081) tended to be lower in the thoracoscopy group, although there was no significant difference. No residual shunt or tricuspid regurgitation was found at follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Total thoracoscopic repair is safe and effective in patients with VSD, with or without tricuspid regurgitation.

Mini-sternotomy vs right anterior thoracotomy for aortic valve replacement.

BACKGROUND: While minimally invasive techniques for aortic valve replacement (AVR) have been shown to be safe, limited data exist comparing the varying approaches. This study aimed to compare the outcomes between two minimally invasive approaches for AVR: mini-sternotomy (MS) and right anterior thoracotomy (RAT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and OVID was conducted for the period 1990-2019. Nine observational studies (n = 2926 patients) met the inclusion criteria. RESULTS: There was no difference in operative mortality between MS and RAT (odds ratio [OR]: 0.87, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.41-1.85; P = .709). Meta-analyses favored MS over RAT in reoperation for bleeding (OR: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.28-0.63; P < .001), aortic cross-clamp time (standardized mean difference [SMD]: -0.12, 95% CI: -0.20 to 0.029; P = .009), and the rate of conversion to sternotomy (OR: 0.32, 95% CI: 0.11-0.93; P = .036). The rate of permanent pacemaker insertion approached borderline significance in favor of MS (OR: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.26-1.12; P = .097). In-hospital outcomes of stroke, atrial fibrillation, and surgical site infection were similar between the two groups. The length of hospital stay was shorter for RAT (SMD: 0.12, 95% CI: 0.027-0.22; P = .012) and the length of postoperative ventilation was borderline significant in favor of RAT (SMD: 0.16, 95% CI: -0.027 to 0.34; P = .095). CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights important differences in short-term outcomes between MS and RAT as approaches for AVR. This has important implications for patient selection, especially in the elderly, where such approaches are becoming more common-place.

Minimally Invasive Versus Conventional Aortic Root Replacement - A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Mini-sternotomy has been proven superior to full sternotomy in aortic valve replacement by providing better perioperative outcomes. We investigated whether such technique provides better outcomes in patients undergoing aortic root surgery. METHODS: A comprehensive electronic literature search was undertaken among the four major databases (PubMed, Ovid, Scopus and EMBASE) to identify all published studies up to June 2018. The search terms used related to mini-sternotomy versus full sternotomy, aortic root, valve sparing, Bentall procedure. Only articles that compared mini against full sternotomy were considered in this analysis. After excluding articles based on title or abstract, the full text articles selected had reference lists searched for any potential further articles to be included in this review. RESULTS: A total of 2,765 patients were analysed from across eight comparative studies that were included in the quantitative analysis of the parameters of interest that fulfilled the criteria for meta-analysis. Mini-sternotomy aortic root replacement was associated with significantly shorter cardiopulmonary bypass time (p=0.009), lower rate of blood transfusion (p=0.01). additionally, they had lower operative mortality (p=0.02), and shorter stay at intensive care and at hospital (p=0.0009, p=0.03 respectively). However, there was no difference between mini-sternotomy and conventional aortic root replacement in terms of aortic cross-clamp time (p=0.28), total operation time (p=0.31), re-exploration rate for bleeding (p=0.28), stroke rate (p=0.90), wound infection rate (p=0.96), and length of mechanical ventilation (p=0.10). CONCLUSION: Mini-sternotomy is a safe, feasible alternative option to full sternotomy in aortic root repair. However, the significant heterogeneity in data points to the need for a larger, well-designed trial to support the currently limited literature evidences.

Assessment of quality of life in patients after surgical and transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

OBJECTIVES: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (mini-thoracotomy, mini-sternotomy, MIAVR) have become an appealing alternative to conventional surgical (SAVR) treatment of severe aortic stenosis (AS) in high-risk patients. BACKGROUND: Aim of the study was to evaluate the quality of life (QoL) in patients with AS and treated with transfemoral TAVI, SAVR, mini-thoracotomy and mini-sternotomy. METHODS: One hundred and seventy-three patients with symptomatic AS were enrolled in 2011-2013. TAVI group consisted of 39 patients (22.5%), mini-sternotomy was performed in 44 patients (25.5%), mini-thoracotomy in 50 (29%), and AVR in 40 patients (23%). QoL was assessed perioperatively, 12 and 24 months after aortic valve replacement (AVR) by Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ) and EQ-5D-3L. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 583.5 (IQR: 298-736) days. Improvement of health status after procedure in comparison with pre-operative period was significantly more often reported after TAVI in perioperative period (90.3%; P = 0.004) and 12 months after procedure (100%, P = 0.02). Global MLHFQ, physical and emotional dimension score at 30-day from AVR presented significant improvement after TAVI in comparison with surgical methods (respectively: 8.3(±8.6), P = 0.003; 4.1(±5.9), P = 0.01; 1.5(±2.6), P = 0.005). Total MLHFQ score was significantly lower (better outcome) in TAVI patients 1 year after procedure (4.8(±6.8), P = 0.004), no differences in somatic and emotional component were found. No differences were found in MLHFQ score 24 months after AVR. Data from EQ-D5-3L questionnaire demonstrated significant improvement of QoL at 30-day follow-up after TAVI in comparison with surgical methods (1.2(±1.7), P = 0.0008). CONCLUSIONS: TAVI improves QoL in perioperative and 12 months observation in comparison with mini-thoracotomy, mini-sternotomy and SAVR. Improvement in QoL was obtained in both generic and disease specific questionnaires. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Health-related quality of life after minimal-invasive treatment of aortic valve stenosis in the elderly.

Background: Although transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TF-TAVI) offers superior early outcome over open surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in the elderly, a comparison of TF-TAVI with surgery performed through partial upper mini sternotomy (PUMS) hasn't yet been validated. The aim of the present study is to evaluate the clinical outcome and quality of life of patients subjected to TF-TAVI and open surgical aortic valve replacement through partial upper mini sternotomy (PUMS-SAVR). Methods: Baseline, procedural and post-treatment data of 197 consecutive patients: 137 TF-TAVI and 60 PUMS-SAVR treated at Philipps University of Marburg, were retrospectively collected. The propensity score method was used to create two groups in a 1:1 fashion. Questionnaire assessment (SF36_LQ) of quality of life of the matched patients was carried out at the ambulant routine control presentation. A competing risk regression model is used to evaluate the impact of the clinical outcome on health-related quality of life (HrQoL). Results: After propensity matching, TF-TAVI remained associated with lower procedural time (136±50 vs. 298±36 min, P<0.01), intensive care unit stay (2.68±2.70 vs. 4.29±2.43 days, P<0.01), transfusion of packed red cell units (0.46±2.05 vs. 1.60±2.00 U, P=0.02) and higher heart block (42.86% vs. 0%, P<0.01) and permanent pacemaker implantation rates (14.29% vs. 0%, P=0.05) compared to PUMS-SAVR. TF-TAVI is associated with less complains, superior HrQoL (excellent 40% and very good 60% vs. very good 100% in PUMS). Partial sternotomy is the main predictor of the inferior HrQoL, with the regression coefficient of -1.11 (95% confidential interval, -1.503 to -0.726; R2=0.324, P<0.0001). Transfusion (P=0.26), paravalvular leakage (0.618), pacemaker implantation (P=0.19) and delirium (P=0.92) did not influence HrQoL after the minimal-invasive treatment of aortic valve stenosis in elderly patients. Conclusions: Although PUMS-SAVR offers better technical outcomes with less permanent pacemaker implantation and less paravalvular leakage than TF-TAVI, it is still associated with more need for transfusion, longer ventilation-and intensive care unit-times, and prolonged hospital stay. In the elderly, PUMS-SAVR achieves inferior quality of life compared to TF-TAVI. Partial sternotomy reveals as the strongest risk factor of perceived health-level post-treatment. It remains to be revealed whether fast-track open heart surgery that maintains a fully intact sternum and allows immediate postoperative extubation-as performed through video-assisted mini-thoracotomy or thoracoscopic robotic procedures with percutaneous cannulation - should be favored against PUMS-SAVR.

Minimally invasive approaches versus conventional sternotomy for aortic valve replacement in patients with aortic valve disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 17 269 patients.

Background: Aortic valve replacement (AVR) is a common procedure for aortic valve pathologies, particularly in the elderly. While traditional open AVR is established, minimally invasive techniques aim to reduce morbidity and enhance treatment outcomes. The authors' meta-analysis compares these approaches with conventional sternotomy, offering insights into short and long-term mortality and postoperative results. This study provides valuable evidence for informed decision-making between conventional and minimally invasive approaches for AVR. Materials and methods: Till August 2023, PubMed, Embase, and MEDLINE databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCT) and propensity score matched (PSM) studies comparing minimally invasive approaches [mini-sternotomy (MS) and right mini-thoracotomy (RMT)] with full sternotomy (FS) for AVR. Various outcomes were analyzed, including mortality rates, bypass and clamp times, length of hospital stay, and complications. Risk ratios (RR) and the weighted mean differences (WMD) with corresponding 95% CIs were calculated using Review Manager. Results: Forty-eight studies were included having 17 269 patients in total. When compared to FS, there was no statistically significant difference in in-hospital mortality in MS (RR:0.80; 95% CI:0.50-1.27; I2=1%; P=0.42) and RMT (RR:0.70; 95% CI:0.36-1.35; I2=0%; P=0.29). FS was also linked with considerably longer cardiopulmonary bypass duration than MS (MD:8.68; 95% CI:5.81-11.56; I2=92%; P=0.00001). The hospital length of stay was determined to be shorter in MS (MD:-0.58; 95% CI:-1.08 to -0.09; I2=89%; P=0.02) with no statistically significant difference in RMT (MD:-0.67; 95% CI:-1.42 to 0.08; I2=84%; P=0.08) when compared to FS. Conclusions: While mortality rates were comparable in minimally invasive approaches and FS, analysis shows that MS, due to fewer respiratory and renal insufficiencies, as well as shorter hospital and ICU stay, may be a safer approach than both RMT and FS.

Comparative Analysis of Long-Term Outcomes in Valve-Sparing Aortic Root Reimplantation: Full Sternotomy versus Mini-Sternotomy Approach.

Background: Aortic valve-sparing aortic root replacement (VSARR) David procedure has not been routinely performed via minimally invasive access due to its complexity. Methods: We compared our results for mini-VSARR to sternotomy-VSARR from another excellence center. Results: Eighty-four patients, 62 in the sternotomy-VSARR group and 22 in the mini-VSARR group, were included. A baseline, the aneurysm dimensions were higher in the mini-VSARR group. Propensity matching resulted in 17 pairs with comparable characteristics. Aortic cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times were significantly longer in the mini-VSARR group, by 60 and 20 min, respectively (p < 0.001). In-hospital outcomes were comparable between the groups. Drainage volumes were numerically lower, and hospital length of stay was, on average, 3 days shorter (p < 0.001) in the mini-VSARR group. At a median follow-up of 5.5 years, there was no difference in mortality (p = 0.230). Survival at 1, 5 and 10 years was 100%, 100%, and 95% and 95%, 87% and 84% in the mini-VSARR and sternotomy-VSARR groups, respectively. No repeat interventions on the aortic valve were documented. Echocardiographic follow-up was complete in 91% with excellent durability of repair regardless of the approach: no cases of moderate/severe aortic regurgitation were reported in the mini-VSARR group. Conclusions: The favorable outcomes, reduced drainage, and shorter hospital stays associated with the mini-sternotomy approach underscore its potential advantages expanding beyond cosmetic outcome.

Different approach, similar outcomes: the impact of surgical access routes in minimally invasive cardiac surgery on enhanced recovery after surgery.

Objectives: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) is a growing phenomenon in all surgical disciplines and aims to achieve a faster functional recovery after major operations. Minimally invasive cardiac surgery (MICS) therefore integrates well into core ERAS values. Surgical access routes in MICS include right anterolateral mini-thoracotomy (MT) as well as partial upper mini-sternotomy (PS). We seek to compare outcomes in these two cohorts, both of which were enrolled in an ERAS scheme. Methods: 358 consecutive patients underwent MICS and perioperative ERAS at our institution between 01/2021 and 03/2023. Patients age >80 years, with BMI > 35 kg/m², LVEF ≤ 35%, endocarditis or stroke with residuum were excluded. Retrospective cohort analysis and statistical testing was performed on the remaining 291 patients. The primary endpoint was successful ERAS, secondary endpoints were the occurrence of major bleeding, ERAS-associated complications (reintubation, return to ICU) as well as access-related complications (wound infection, pleural and pericardial effusions). Results: 170 (59%) patients received MT for mitral and/or tricuspid valve surgery (n = 162), closure of atrial septal defect (n = 4) or resection of left atrial tumor (n = 4). The remaining 121 (41%) patients had PS for aortic valve repair/replacement (n = 83) or aortic root/ascending surgery (n = 22) or both (n = 16). MT patients' median age was 63 years (IQR 56-71) and 65% were male, PS patients' median age was 63 years (IQR 51-69) and 74% were male. 251 (MT 88%, PS 83%, p = 0.73) patients passed through the ERAS program successfully. There were three instances of reintubation (2 MT, 1 PS), and three instances of readmission to ICU (2 MT, 1 PS). Bleeding requiring reexploration occurred six times (3 MT, 3 PS). There was one death (PS), one stroke (MT), and one myocardial infarction requiring revascularization (MT). There were no significant differences in any of the post-operative outcomes recorded, except for the incidence of pericardial effusions (MT 0%, PS 3%, p = 0.03). Conclusions: Despite different surgical access routes and underlying pathologies, results in both the MT and the PS cohort were generally comparable for the recorded outcomes. ERAS remains safe and feasible in these patient groups.

Minimally invasive, surgical, and transcatheter aortic valve replacement: A network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has evolved as an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). In addition to full-sternotomy (FS), recent reports have shown successful minimally-invasive SAVR approaches, including mini-sternotomy (MS) and mini-thoracotomy (MT). This network-meta-analysis (NMA) seeks to provide an outcomes comparison based on these different modalities (MS, MT, TAVR) compared with FS as a reference arm for the management of aortic valve disease. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was performed to identify studies that compared minimally-invasive SAVR (MS/MT) to conventional FS-SAVR, and/or TAVR. Bayesian NMA was performed using the random effects model. Outcomes were pooled as risk ratios (RR) with their 95 % confidence intervals (CIs). Our primary outcomes included 30-day mortality, stroke, acute kidney injury (AKI), major bleeding, new permanent pacemaker (PPM), and paravalvular leak (PVL). We also assessed long-term mortality at the latest follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 27,117 patients (56 studies) were included; 10,397 patients had FS SAVR, 9523 had MS, 5487 had MT, and 1710 had TAVR. Compared to FS, MS was associated with statistically-significantly lower rates of 30-day mortality (RR, 0.76, 95%CI 0.59-0.98), stroke (RR, 0.84, 95%CI 0.72-0.97), AKI (RR, 0.76, 95%CI 0.61-0.94), and long-term mortality (RR 0.84, 95%CI 0.72-0.97) at a weighted mean follow-up duration of 10.4 years, while MT showed statistically-significantly higher rates of 30-day PVL (RR, 3.76, 95%CI 1.31-10.85) and major bleeding (RR 1.45; 95%CI 1.08-1.94). TAVR had statistically significant lower rates of 30-day AKI (RR 0.49, 95%CI 0.31-0.77), but showed statistically-significantly higher PPM (RR 2.50; 95%CI 1.60-3.91) and 30-day PVL (RR 12.85, 95%CI 5.05-32.68) compared to FS. CONCLUSIONS: MS was protective against 30-day mortality, stroke, AKI, and long-term mortality compared to FS; TAVR showed higher rates of 30-day PVL and PPM but was protective against AKI. Conversely, MT showed higher rates of 30-day PVL and major bleeding. With the emergence of TAVR, the appropriate benchmarks for SAVR comparison in future trials should be the minimally-invasive SAVR approaches to provide clinical equipoise.

Aortic Valve Replacement: Totally Endoscopic versus Mini-Sternotomy.

(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.

Anesthetic management of mini sternotomy and excision of mediastinal neurogenic tumor: Brain-Heart crosstalk.

Brachial plexus tumors are rare and pose challenges for neurosurgeons due to their anatomical complexity. Retrosternal extension of a tumor makes it more difficult for the surgeons as well as for the anesthesiologists to secure a definitive airway. A cardiopulmonary bypass would be lifesaving in the event of acute cardiorespiratory decompensation. Multidisciplinary collaboration and cooperation between the neurosurgeon, oncosurgeon, cardiothoracic surgeon, and anesthesiologist are imperative to ensure good patient outcomes. Meticulous preoperative evaluation and operative planning are essentially the key factors in anesthetic management. Here we report a successful management of a 49-year-old male patient presented with a large painless mass arising from his right supraclavicular region and compressing the roots of the brachial plexus, trachea, and esophagus and extending up to the apex of the lungs, posted for mini sternotomy and excision of the mass.

Long-term outcomes of mini-sternotomy versus conventional sternotomy for aortic valve replacement: a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: Aortic valve replacement (AVR) for severe symptomatic aortic stenosis is one of the most common cardiac surgical procedures with excellent long-term outcomes. Multiple previous studies have compared short-term outcomes of AVR with mini-sternotomy versus AVR with conventional sternotomy. We have previously reported the results of the randomized MAVRIC trial, which aimed to evaluate early postoperative morbidity among patients undergoing mini-sternotomy and conventional sternotomy AVR. We now report the long-term all-cause mortality, reoperation, MACE outcomes and echocardiographic data from this trial. METHODS: The prospective, randomized, single-centre, single-blind MAVRIC (manubrium-limited mini-sternotomy versus conventional sternotomy for aortic valve replacement) trial compared manubrium-limited mini-sternotomy and conventional median sternotomy for the treatment of patients with severe aortic stenosis. The previously reported primary outcome was the proportion of patients receiving red cell transfusion postoperatively and within 7 days of the index procedure. Currently reported exploratory analyses of a combined long-term all-cause mortality and reoperation were compared between groups via the log-rank test. Sensitivity analyses reviewed individual components of the combined end point. The primary analysis and long-term exploratory analyses were based on an intention-to-treat principle. RESULTS: Between March 2014 and June 2016, 270 patients were enrolled and randomized in a 1:1 fashion to undergo mini-sternotomy AVR (n = 135) or conventional median sternotomy AVR (n = 135). At the median follow-up of 6.1 years, the composite outcome of all-cause mortality and reoperation occurred in 18.5% (25/135) of patients in the conventional sternotomy group and in 17% (23/135) of patients in the mini-sternotomy group. The incidence of chronic kidney disease, cerebrovascular accident and myocardial infarction was not significantly different between 2 groups. Follow-up echocardiographic data suggested no difference in peak and mean gradients or incidence of aortic regurgitation between 2 approaches. CONCLUSIONS: This exploratory long-term analysis demonstrated that, in patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing isolated AVR, there was no significant difference between manubrium-limited mini-sternotomy and conventional sternotomy with respect to all-cause mortality, rate of reoperation, MACE events and echocardiographic data at the median of 6.1-year follow-up.