Aortic valve replacement through full sternotomy with a stented bioprosthesis versus minimally invasive sternotomy with a sutureless bioprosthesis
Why the study?
Does ministernotomy with a sutureless bioprosthesis improve early postoperative outcomes and 2-year survival compared to full sternotomy with a stented bioprosthesis in patients undergoing primary isolated non-emergent AVR?
Population
565 patients undergoing primary isolated non-emergent aortic valve replacement (AVR) at six European centres.
Comparison
Ministernotomy with a sutureless bioprosthesis vs Full sternotomy with a stented bioprosthesis
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
2 years
Authors
Discussion
Loading...
Member takes
Implication
Similar survival despite shorter operative times; leaves open whether ministernotomy sutureless AVR confers net benefit in randomized trials.
Structured PICO
Does ministernotomy with a sutureless bioprosthesis improve early postoperative outcomes and 2-year survival compared to full sternotomy with a stented bioprosthesis in patients undergoing primary isolated non-emergent AVR?
P
Population
565 patients undergoing primary isolated non-emergent aortic valve replacement (AVR) at six European centres.
I
Intervention
Ministernotomy with a sutureless bioprosthesis
C
Comparator
Full sternotomy with a stented bioprosthesis
O
Outcome
Early postoperative outcomes (including 30-day mortality) and 2-year survivalhard clinical
Ministernotomy with a sutureless bioprosthesis for AVR reduces operative times and blood transfusions but increases the risk of permanent pacemaker implantation, with similar short- and mid-term survival compared to full sternotomy with a stented bioprosthesis.
Cite This Study
Dalén et al. (2015) studied this question.