Key result
MIAVR in obese patients yields comparable 30-day mortality to CAVR with faster extubation times.
Why the study?
Obese patients are at risk of complications after cardiac surgery, prompting an evaluation of the safety and efficacy of minimally invasive aortic valve replacement via upper sternotomy in this population.
Does minimally invasive aortic valve replacement improve postoperative outcomes in obese patients undergoing isolated elective aortic valve replacement compared to conventional aortic valve replacement?
Cohort (n=203)
Does minimally invasive aortic valve replacement improve postoperative outcomes in obese patients undergoing isolated elective aortic valve replacement compared to conventional aortic valve replacement?
Absolute Event Rate: 1.1% vs 0%
p-value: p=0.99
Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement via upper sternotomy is safe in obese patients and improves respiratory outcomes and ICU length of stay compared to conventional sternotomy.
Should not yet change practice in obese AVR patients; leaves open need for randomized confirmation of respiratory benefits.
INTRODUCTION: Obese patients are at risk of complications after cardiac surgery. The aim of this study is to investigate safety and efficacy of a minimally invasive approach via upper sternotomy in this setting. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 203 obese patients who underwent isolated, elective aortic valve replacement between January 2014 and January 2023 - 106 with minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MIAVR) and 97 with conventional aortic valve replacement (CAVR). To account for baseline differences, a propensity-matching analysis was performed obtaining two balanced groups of 91 patients each. RESULTS: The 30-day mortality rate was comparable between groups (1.1% MIAVR vs. 0% CAVR, P=0.99). MIAVR patients had faster extubation than CAVR patients (6 ± 2 vs. 9 ± 2 hours, P<0.01). Continuous positive airway pressure therapy was less common in the MIAVR than in the CAVR group (3.3% vs. 13.2%, P=0.03). Other postoperative complications did not differ significantly. Intensive care unit stay (1.8 ± 1.2 vs. 3.2 ± 1.4 days, P<0.01), but not hospital stay (6.7 ± 2.1 vs. 7.2 ± 1.9 days, P=0.09), was shorter for MIAVR than for CAVR patients. Follow-up survival was comparable (logrank P-value = 0.58). CONCLUSION: MIAVR via upper sternotomy has been shown to be a safe and effective option for obese patients. Respiratory outcome was promising with shorter mechanical ventilation time and reduced need for post-extubation support. The length of stay in the intensive care unit was reduced. These advantages might be important for the obese patient to whom minimally invasive surgery should not be denied.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cammertoni et al. (2024) conducted a cohort in Obesity requiring aortic valve replacement (n=203). Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MIAVR) vs. Conventional aortic valve replacement (CAVR) was evaluated on 30-day mortality (p=0.99). Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement in obese patients had comparable 30-day mortality to conventional surgery (1.1% vs 0%, P=0.99) and significantly faster extubation times.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: