Key result
Minimally invasive AVR linked to ~51% lower AF risk versus sternotomy when EF ≥40%.
Why the study?
Does minimally invasive aortic valve replacement improve short-term outcomes compared to traditional sternotomy in patients stratified by ejection fraction?
Does minimally invasive aortic valve replacement improve short-term outcomes compared to traditional sternotomy in patients stratified by ejection fraction?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement improves short-term outcomes in patients with preserved ejection fraction but offers equivalent outcomes to traditional sternotomy in those with left ventricular dysfunction.
OBJECTIVE: Low ejection fraction (EF < 40%) portends adverse outcomes in patients undergoing valvular heart surgery. The role of traditional median sternotomy aortic valve replacement (SAVR) compared with minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MIAVR) in this cohort remains incompletely understood. METHODS: A multi-institutional retrospective review of 1503 patients who underwent SAVR (n = 815) and MIAVR via right anterior thoracotomy (n = 688) from 2011 to 2014 was performed. Patients were stratified into two groups: EF of less than 40% and EF of 40% or more. In each EF group, SAVR and MIAVR patients were propensity matched by age, sex, body mass index, race, diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, dialysis, cerebrovascular disease, cardiovascular disease, cerebrovascular accident, peripheral vascular disease, last creatinine level, EF, previous MI and cardiogenic shock, and the Society for Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score. RESULTS: Among patients with an EF of 40% or more (377 pairs), patients who underwent MIAVR compared with SAVR had decreased intensive care unit hours (56.8% vs 84.6%, P < 0.001), postoperative length of stay (7.1 vs 7.9 days, P = 0.04), incidence of atrial fibrillation (18.8% vs 38.7%, P < 0.001), bleeding (0.8% vs 3.2%, P = 0.04), and a trend toward decreased 30-day mortality (0.3% vs 1.3%, P = 0.22). The STS scores were largely equivalent in patients undergoing MIAVR compared with SAVR (2.4% vs 2.6%, P = 0.09). In patients with an EF of less than 40% (35 pairs), there was no difference in intensive care unit hours (69% vs 72.6%, P = 0.80), postoperative length of stay (10.3 vs 7.2 days, P = 0.13), 30-day mortality (3.8% vs 0.8%, P = 0.50), or the STS score (3.3% vs 3.2%, P = 0.68). CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement in patients with preserved EF was associated with improved short-term outcomes compared with SAVR. In patients with left ventricular dysfunction, short-term outcomes between MIAVR and SAVR are largely equivalent.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nguyen et al. (2017) studied this question. Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement reduced atrial fibrillation (18.8% vs 38.7%, P<0.001) versus sternotomy in patients with EF ≥40%, with no significant differences in those with EF <40%.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: