Key result
Minimal invasive aortic valve replacement resulted in comparable 5-year survival compared to conventional aortic valve replacement.
Why the study?
Does minimal invasive aortic valve replacement improve 5-year survival and postoperative outcomes compared to conventional aortic valve replacement in patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis?
Observational (n=48)
No
Does minimal invasive aortic valve replacement improve 5-year survival and postoperative outcomes compared to conventional aortic valve replacement in patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement via partial upper sternotomy is safe and provides comparable 5-year survival and postoperative outcomes to conventional full sternotomy, despite longer cross-clamp and bypass times.
INTRODUCTION: Minimal invasive aortic valve replacement has become a routine procedure. In this study, we compared the outcomes between conventional and minimal invasive aortic valve replacement via the partial upper sternotomy that were performed in our Institution. METHODS: The 5 year survival and postoperative outcomes of 34 patients that underwent isolated MIAVR between the years 2010-2013 were compared with the outcomes of 34 randomly selected patients that underwent conventional AVR, after propensity match analysis. RESULTS: There was no difference between the two groups concerning the early and late postoperative outcomes. MIAVR patients had a longer mean cross-clamp time (p = 0.002) and longer cardiopulmonary bypass time (p = 0.0005) compared to the AVR patients. 5 year mortality and survival were 4.17 % vs 16.67 % (p = 0.20) and 95.8 % vs 83.3 % (p = 0.37) in the MIAVR and AVR groups respectively. CONCLUSION: This study showed a comparable 5 year survival and postoperative outcomes between the MIAVR and AVR groups. In our opinion, the minimal access aortic valve replacement can be performed safely with excellent long-term results in selected patients (Tab. 4, Fig. 1, Ref. 35).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gašparovič et al. (2017) conducted an observational in Severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (n=48). Minimal invasive aortic valve replacement (MIAVR) vs. Conventional aortic valve replacement (AVR) was evaluated on 5-year survival (p=0.37). Minimal invasive aortic valve replacement resulted in comparable 5-year survival compared to conventional aortic valve replacement.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: