Key result
Total endoscopic aortic valve replacement significantly reduced postoperative hospital stay (6.0 vs 8.0 days, p=0.025) and mechanical ventilation time compared to traditional full-sternotomy, despite longer operative times.
Why the study?
To demonstrate the technical details of total endoscopic aortic valve replacement using a standard prosthesis and compare its clinical effect and safety with traditional aortic valve replacement.
Does total endoscopic aortic valve replacement improve early postoperative recovery compared to traditional full-sternotomy in patients undergoing elective isolated aortic valve replacement?
Cohort (n=60)
No
Does total endoscopic aortic valve replacement improve early postoperative recovery compared to traditional full-sternotomy in patients undergoing elective isolated aortic valve replacement?
Absolute Event Rate: 6% vs 8%
p-value: p=0.025
Total endoscopic aortic valve replacement is safe and feasible, offering quicker recovery and shorter hospital stays despite longer procedural times compared to traditional sternotomy.
Objective To demonstrate the technical details of total endoscopic aortic valve replacement using a standard prosthesis, compare the clinical effect and safety of endoscopic aortic valve replacement and traditional aortic valve replacement. Methods From 2020 to 2021, 60 consecutive patients underwent elective isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR). They were divided into two groups: the total endoscopic AVR group (TE-AVR group, 29 patients, nine women, aged 51.65 ± 11.79 years), and the traditional full-sternotomy group (AVR group, 31 patients, 13 women, aged 54.23 ± 12.06 years). Three working ports were adopted in the TE-AVR procedure. Results No patient died in either group. The cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time and aortic cross-clamp (ACC) time in the TE-AVR group were longer than those in the AVR group (CPB time: 177.6 ± 43.2 vs. 112.1 ± 18.1 min, p < 0.001; ACC time: 118.3 ± 29.7 vs. 67.0 ± 13.2 min, p < 0.001). However, the mechanical ventilation duration (14.2 ± 9.3 vs. 24.0 ± 18.9 h, p = 0.015) and postoperative hospital stay (6.0 ± 1.7 vs. 8.0 ± 4.5 days, p = 0.025) were shorter in patients of TE-AVR group than those of AVR group. Although the ICU stay (55.1 ± 26.9 vs. 61.5 ± 44.8 h, p = 0.509) and post-operative chest drainage of the first 24 h (229.8 ± 125.0 vs. 273.2 ± 103.2 ml, p = 0.146) revealed no statistical difference, there was a decreasing trend in the TE-AVR group. Among the patients of the TE-AVR group, two patients were converted to thoracotomy because of mild to moderate paravalvular leakage identified by intraoperative transesophageal echocardiography. Conclusion Total endoscopic aortic valve replacement is safe and feasible, with less trauma and quicker recovery.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gu et al. (2023) conducted a cohort in Aortic valve disease (n=60). Total endoscopic aortic valve replacement vs. Traditional full-sternotomy aortic valve replacement was evaluated on Postoperative hospital stay (days) (p=0.025). Total endoscopic aortic valve replacement significantly reduced postoperative hospital stay (6.0 vs 8.0 days, p=0.025) and mechanical ventilation time compared to traditional full-sternotomy, despite longer operative times.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: