Key result
Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement yielded similar postoperative complications to the conventional approach, but involved higher use of cell-salvaged blood (25.8% vs 11.3%, p=0.02).
Why the study?
Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement requires altered cannulation and CPB management versus conventional surgery, but whether these differences affect perfusion-related quality parameters and impair postoperative outcomes was unclear.
Does minimally invasive aortic valve replacement improve postoperative outcomes compared to conventional aortic valve replacement in patients undergoing aortic valve surgery?
Cohort (n=339)
Does minimally invasive aortic valve replacement improve postoperative outcomes compared to conventional aortic valve replacement in patients undergoing aortic valve surgery?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement offers similar safety to conventional surgery but may reduce mechanical ventilation time, hospital stay, and blood transfusions.
INTRODUCTION: Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MIAVR) requires changes in cannulation strategy and cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) management when compared to the conventional approach (CAVR). We aimed at evaluating if these differences could influence perfusion-related quality parameters and impair postoperative outcomes. METHODS: Overall, 339 consecutive patients underwent MIAVR or CAVR between 2014 and 2020 and were analyzed retrospectively. To account for baseline differences, a propensity-matching analysis was performed, obtaining two groups of 97 patients each. Mean arterial pressure was 73 = 9 mmHg vs 62 = 11 mmHg for the MIAVR and CAVR group, respectively (p < .001). Cell-salvaged blood was most commonly used in the MIAVR group (25.8% vs 11.3%, p = .02). Finally, CPB temperature was 32.8°C (32.1-34.8) for MIAVR group vs 34.9°C (33.2-36.1) for the CAVR group (p = .02). Postoperative complications were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, despite differences in CPB parameters in patients undergoing CAVR and MIAVR, the incidences of adverse outcomes were similar. However, compared to CAVR, MIAVR was associated with shorter durations of mechanical ventilation and hospital stay as well as less transfusion of blood products.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cammertoni et al. (2021) conducted a cohort in Aortic valve replacement (n=339). Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MIAVR) vs. Conventional aortic valve replacement (CAVR) was evaluated on Postoperative complications. Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement yielded similar postoperative complications to the conventional approach, but involved higher use of cell-salvaged blood (25.8% vs 11.3%, p=0.02).
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: