Key result
Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement shows comparable perioperative safety to full sternotomy.
Why the study?
Comparative data for minimally invasive aortic valve replacement approaches remain heterogeneous and fragmented despite maturing into guideline-endorsed standards.
Does minimally invasive aortic valve replacement improve perioperative and long-term outcomes compared to full sternotomy in patients undergoing isolated AVR?
Systematic Review (n=15,328)
Does minimally invasive aortic valve replacement improve perioperative and long-term outcomes compared to full sternotomy in patients undergoing isolated AVR?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement via ministernotomy, right anterior thoracotomy, and transaxillary access represents a mature, safe, and durable alternative to full sternotomy.
Background: Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MIAVR) via transaxillary access, right anterior thoracotomy (RAT), and ministernotomy has matured from niche innovation to guideline-endorsed standard, yet comparative data remain heterogeneous and fragmented. Objectives: This state-of-the-art review synthesizes contemporary evidence to define the role of each approach within modern valve care pathways. Methods: A PRISMA 2020 systematic review with PROSPERO registration identified studies reporting outcomes of isolated AVR performed through transaxillary, RAT, or ministernotomy access. Primary endpoints were 30-day mortality, operative times, and length of stay; secondary endpoints included complications, long-term survival, learning curves, and patient-reported outcomes. Results: Forty-two studies encompassing 15,328 patients were included: transaxillary (n = 2156), RAT (n = 4892), and ministernotomy (n = 8280). All approaches achieved excellent perioperative safety (mortality 0.4–2.5%) and long-term survival comparable to full sternotomy, while consistently reducing blood loss, transfusion, ventilation time, and hospital stay. Ministernotomy offered the broadest anatomical applicability and the shortest learning curve (20–30 cases). RAT combined complete sternal preservation, the lowest bleeding rates, and superior cosmetic and functional recovery in anatomically suitable patients. Transaxillary access provided hidden scarring and attractive options in redo or sternum-avoidance scenarios, but higher reported stroke rates (2.0–6.3%) and greater technical demands limited its use to high-volume centers. Conclusions: MIAVR via ministernotomy, RAT, and transaxillary access now represents a mature, durable alternative to full sternotomy. A structured, anatomy- and center experience-driven selection strategy is essential to fully realize its benefits across diverse patient populations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kowalówka et al. (2026) conducted a systematic review in Aortic valve disease requiring isolated aortic valve replacement (n=15,328). Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (transaxillary, right anterior thoracotomy, ministernotomy) vs. Full sternotomy was evaluated on 30-day mortality, operative times, and length of stay. Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement via ministernotomy, thoracotomy, or transaxillary access achieved excellent perioperative safety comparable to full sternotomy.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: