Propensity-score matched comparison between minimally invasive and conventional aortic valve replacement.

AIM: To evaluate the impact of minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (mini-AVR) on clinical outcomes in comparison with the gold standard. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the records of all patients who underwent isolated AVR at the University Hospital Center Zagreb from 2010 to 2020. Patients undergoing mini-AVR were compared with patients undergoing conventional AVR (fs-AVR). The primary outcome measure was blood product consumption. Propensity score matching was used to create a balanced covariate distribution across treatment groups. Additionally, we compared the contemporary outcomes with a historical control. RESULTS: The final sample consisted of 1088 patients. In the unmatched cohorts, mini-AVR patients were younger (65±12 vs 68±10 years, P<0.001) and had lower risk profiles (EuroSCORE2 2.8±2.0 vs 3.5±3.1, P=0.003). After matching, mini-AVR patients required less blood transfusion than fs-AVR patients (270 [0-790] vs 510 [0-970] mL, P=0.029). The incidences of stroke, dialysis, new AV block, and mortality were comparable. Cross-clamp times were longer in the mini-AVR group (71 [60-87] vs 66 [53-83] minutes, P=0.013). Outcomes were improved in the contemporary mini-AVR era compared with our early mini-AVR experience across multiple metrics. Blood product consumption was reduced in the latter tercile of experience (0 [0-520] vs 500 [0-1018] mL, P<0.001), and the operation was performed more expeditiously (cross-clamp times: 63 [54,80] vs 74 [62,88] minutes, P<0.001) in comparison with earlier periods. CONCLUSIONS: We showed that mini-AVR was associated with less blood product requirement than conventional surgery. Our data supports wider adoption of minimally invasive techniques in dedicated centers of excellence.