Key result
Minimally invasive extracorporeal circulation shows similar operative mortality to standard CPB for aortic valve replacement.
Why the study?
Does minimally invasive extracorporeal circulation (miniECC) improve safety and clinical outcomes compared to standard cardiopulmonary bypass in patients undergoing isolated aortic valve replacement?
Cohort (n=181)
Does minimally invasive extracorporeal circulation (miniECC) improve safety and clinical outcomes compared to standard cardiopulmonary bypass in patients undergoing isolated aortic valve replacement?
Minimally invasive extracorporeal circulation is a safe alternative to standard cardiopulmonary bypass for aortic valve replacement, yielding comparable clinical outcomes without demonstrating superiority.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
MiniECC was associated with similar AVR mortality to standard bypass; leaves open superiority in randomized trials.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and the clinical outcomes of aortic valve replacement (AVR) performed with minimally invasive extracorporeal circulation (miniECC) technique vs. standard cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). From February 2006 to December 2007 a total of 181 isolated AVR were performed, of these 53 patients were operated using minimal extracorporeal circulation system and 128 patients were operated using the standard CPB. Demographic characteristics and operative data were similar in both groups except for EuroSCORE (P<0.0001). Operative mortality (<30 days) was 3.8% for miniECC group and 4.7% for CPB group (P=ns). Patients in both groups showed similar postoperative chest tube drainage (432+/-325 ml vs. 460+/-331 ml, P=ns). The percentage of transfused patients was similar in both groups (37.7% vs. 43.8%, P=0.45). The number of transfused blood bank products was higher in patients with a body surface area >1.7 m(2) and who underwent traditional CPB in respect to miniECC system. Postoperatively renal injury, atrial fibrillation episodes, neurologic event rate, ICU and hospital stay length were similar in both groups. The miniECC is suitable for AVR providing good clinical results but the present results should not identify the miniECC system to be superior to the conventional CPB.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Colli et al. (2009) conducted a cohort in Aortic valve replacement (n=181). Minimally invasive extracorporeal circulation (miniECC) vs. Standard cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) was evaluated on Operative mortality (<30 days) (p=ns). Minimally invasive extracorporeal circulation for aortic valve replacement showed similar operative mortality to standard cardiopulmonary bypass (3.8% vs 4.7%, P=ns).
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: