Propensity-matched comparison between minimally invasive and conventional sternotomy in aortic valve resuspension†

Abstract

The aim of the study was to compare the results of David procedure through conventional or minimally invasive approach. A propensity-matched comparison in patients undergoing a minimally invasive (partial upper sternotomy, n = 103) or complete sternotomy (n = 103) David procedure from 1991 to 2016 was performed. Patients were 57 ± 14 years old on average in both groups. The David technique was modified by generating a neosinus (P < 0.01) in 99 (96%) patients (minimally invasive group) and in 42 (41%) patients (complete sternotomy group), respectively. The average follow-up time was 3 ± 2 years (minimally invasive group) and 8 ± 4 years (complete sternotomy group). There was only 1 in-hospital death (in the full sternotomy group, P = 0.5). The applied quantity of packed red blood cells (pRBC) was significantly higher in the complete sternotomy group (3.4 ± 4 vs 1 ± 0.5, P < 0.01). There were no late deaths in the minimally invasive group but 14 died during a longer follow-up period in the full sternotomy group (P < 0.01). Freedom from reoperation or aortic valve insufficiency ≥2° was 95% vs 93% (minimally invasive versus complete sternotomy group) at 5 years and 95% vs 79% at 10 years (P < 0.01). The minimally invasive aortic valve reimplantation procedure for selected patients with aortic root aneurysm and aortic valve incompetence is a durable procedure with minor valve-related morbidity and mortality at the mid-term follow-up. The intra- and perioperative application of pRBC was significantly lower in the minimally invasive group. However, comparison of long-term follow-up data in both groups is necessary to evaluate valve function.