Key result
Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement via upper hemisternotomy resulted in similar combined hospitalization and 30-day mortality compared to full sternotomy (0.99% vs 0.53%), while significantly reducing postoperative blood loss.
Why the study?
Does minimally invasive upper hemisternotomy yield comparable or improved outcomes compared to complete median sternotomy in patients undergoing isolated aortic valve replacement?
Cohort (n=666)
No
Does minimally invasive upper hemisternotomy yield comparable or improved outcomes compared to complete median sternotomy in patients undergoing isolated aortic valve replacement?
Absolute Event Rate: 0.99% vs 0.53%
p-value: p=NS
Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement via upper hemisternotomy is a safe and reproducible alternative to full sternotomy, with comparable short-term mortality despite being used in higher-risk patients.
No abstract yet. The journal hasn't published one we can show.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nešpor et al. (2018) conducted a cohort in Isolated aortic valve replacement (n=666). Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (upper hemisternotomy) vs. Full median sternotomy was evaluated on Combined hospitalization and 30-day mortality (p=NS). Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement via upper hemisternotomy resulted in similar combined hospitalization and 30-day mortality compared to full sternotomy (0.99% vs 0.53%), while significantly reducing postoperative blood loss.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: