Access Aortic Valve Replacement Research Articles

Comparing Quality of Life and Postoperative Pain After Limited Access and Conventional Aortic Valve Replacement: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Objective: Limited access aortic valve replacement (LA-AVR) yields excellent results as an alternative to conventional surgical aortic valve replacement by full median sternotomy (C-AVR). However, robust data on quality of life (QoL) improvements and the differences in postoperative QoL and pain compared to C-AVR are lacking. We report the one-year results of the LImited access Aortic valve Replacement (LIAR) Trial. Methods: The LIAR-Trial is an investigator initiated, Dutch government sponsored, single center, randomized controlled trial comparing postoperative QoL and pain in patients undergoing LA-AVR through partial upper hemisternotomy (UHS) and C-AVR for symptomatic severe aortic valve stenosis. All patients were intended to have their native aortic valve replaced by a rapid deployment stented bioprosthesis (RDSBP). Primary outcome was cardiac related QoL, measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) at one, three, six and twelve months postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included generic QoL, postoperative pain, analgesic use and postoperative Complications. Results: A total of 161 patients were randomized. Per protocol analysis demonstrated significant differences in the primary outcome measures: estimated mean differences of both the Physical Limitations domain (2.22 points; 95%CI, 0.96 - 3.28; p=0.01) and the Total Symptom Score of the KCCQ (3.31 points; 95%CI, 0.30 - 6.31; p=0.031) demonstrated significantly increase improvement after LA-AVR compared to C-AVR. Regarding the secondary outcome measures: LA-AVR was associated with a significant increased improvement in the Overall Summary Score and Social Limitation domain of the KCCQ, Mental Health of the Short Form-36 and reduced postoperative pain. Operative times were significantly longer in the LA-AVR group. No significant differences were found regarding 30-day complication rate. Conclusions: LA-AVR through UHS with the use of a RDSBP is associated with an increased improvement in cardiac related QoL and reduced postoperative pain compared to C-AVR.

Comparing quality of life and postoperative pain after limited access and conventional aortic valve replacement: Design and rationale of the LImited access aortic valve replacement (LIAR) trial

BackgroundSurgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) via limited access approaches (‘mini-AVR’) have proven to be safe alternative for the surgical treatment of aortic valve disease. However, it remains unclear whether these less invasive approaches are associated with improved quality of life and/or reduced postoperative pain when compared to conventional SAVR via full median sternotomy (FMS). Study designThe LImited access Aortic valve Replacement (LIAR) trial is a single-center, single blind randomized controlled clinical trial comparing 2 arms of 80 patients undergoing limited access SAVR via J-shaped upper hemi-sternotomy (UHS) or conventional SAVR through FMS. In all randomized patients, the diseased native aortic valve is planned to be replaced with a rapid deployment stented bioprosthesis. Patients unwilling or unable to participate in the randomized trial will be treated conventionally via SAVR via FMS and with implantation of a sutured valve prosthesis. These patients will participate in a prospective registry. Study methodsPrimary outcome is improvement in cardiac-specific quality of life, measured by two domains of the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire up to one year after surgery. Secondary outcomes include, but are not limited to: generic quality of life measured with the Short Form-36, postoperative pain, perioperative (technical success rate, operating time) and postoperative outcomes (30-day and one-year mortality), complication rate and hospital length of stay. ConclusionThe LIAR trial is designed to determine whether a limited access approach for SAVR (‘mini-AVR’) is associated with improved quality of life and/or reduced postoperative pain compared with conventional SAVR through FMS.The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT04012060.

Traversing the Learning Curve Associated with a New Minimal Access Aortic Valve Replacement Service.

ObjectiveIsolated aortic valve replacement is a safe and frequently performed cardiac surgical procedure. Although minimal access approaches including right anterior thoracotomy and partial sternotomy have been adopted by some surgeons in recent years, concerns about additional procedural morbidity and mortality during the early phase of the learning curve persist. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of the learning curve on outcomes for a single surgeon implementing a new minimal access aortic valve replacement service.MethodsNinety-three patients undergoing minimal access aortic valve replacement performed by a single surgeon in our institution between October 2014 and March 2019 were analysed. Patients were divided into tertiles according to procedure order. Endpoints included peri-operative mortality and post-operative complications, and these were compared across tertiles to assess the impact of the learning curve on procedural outcomes.ResultsOverall in-hospital mortality was 2.15% (n=2). Despite significantly longer cardiopulmonary bypass and cross-clamp duration in the early tertile, there was no significant difference in the rate of post-operative complications, post-operative length of stay or in-hospital mortality between tertiles. ConclusionsAlthough our results have demonstrated a significant learning curve effect associated with the introduction of this minimally invasive approach to aortic valve replacement, as demonstrated by the significant reduction in cardiopulmonary bypass and cross-clamp duration over time, our findings suggest that a minimal access aortic valve replacement service can be safely commenced by an experienced surgeon without concerns about the learning curve significantly affecting post-operative morbidity and mortality.

Short-term outcome of the intuity rapid deployment prosthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Limited access aortic valve replacement is an alternative approach for the treatment of calcified aortic valve disease. To facilitate limited access aortic valve replacement, rapid deployment valve prostheses have been developed aiming to reduce surgical impact. This systematic review gives an overview of current literature regarding the INTUITY or INTUITY Elite rapid deployment biological valve prosthesis. Cochrane, Embase and MEDLINE were searched to identify relevant studies. All studies reporting on patients who underwent isolated or combined surgical aortic valve replacement with the INTUITY or INTUITY Elite valve prosthesis were considered eligible. Primary end points were technical success rate, 30-day mortality, cerebrovascular accident, paravalvular leak and permanent pacemaker implantation. Secondary end points included procedural data such as aortic cross-clamping time, cardiopulmonary bypass time and procedural approach. A total of 16 articles fulfilled the inclusion and exclusion criteria and comprised 4.184 patients. Thirty-day mortality was 2.7% (1.9-3.7%), cerebrovascular accident 2.6% (1.4-4.7%), permanent pacemaker implantation 7.9% (6.6-9.5%) and severe postoperative paravalvular leak requiring a reintervention 3.3% (1.7-6.1%). Technical success rate varied between 93.9% and 100%. Conventional median sternotomy was most commonly performed, ranging from 21.7% to 89.6%. Upper hemi-sternotomy was performed more often than anterior right thoracotomy, ranging from 10.4% to 63.3% and 2.2% to 26.1%. The mean transvalvular pressure gradient ranged between 9.0 and 10.3 mmHg at 1 year postoperatively. This review demonstrates that the technical success rate of the INTUITY or INTUITY Elite rapid deployment valve system is high, also in limited access aortic valve replacement. Mortality and cerebrovascular accident rates are low, but the need for postoperative permanent pacemaker implantation and reintervention rate for paravalvular leakage is increased.

Patient Reported Health-Related Quality of Life After Limited Access and Conventional Aortic Valve Replacement

Patient Reported Health-Related Quality of Life After Limited Access and Conventional Aortic Valve Replacement

Technique and Patient Selection Criteria of Right Anterior Mini-Thoracotomy for Minimal Access Aortic Valve Replacement

Aortic valve stenosis has become the most prevalent valvular heart disease in developed countries, and is due to the aging of these populations. The incidence of the pathology increases with growing age after 65 years. Conventional surgical aortic valve replacement through median sternotomy has been the gold standard of patient care for symptomatic aortic valve stenosis. However, as the risk profile of patients worsens, other therapeutic strategies have been introduced in an attempt to maintain the excellent results obtained by the established surgical treatment. One of these approaches is represented by transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Although the outcomes of high-risk patients undergoing treatment for symptomatic aortic valve stenosis have improved with transcatheter aortic valve replacement, many patients with this condition remain candidates for surgical aortic valve replacement. In order to reduce the surgical trauma in patients who are candidates for surgical aortic valve replacement, minimally invasive approaches have garnered interest during the past decade. Since the introduction of right anterior thoracotomy for aortic valve replacement in 1993, right anterior mini-thoracotomy and upper hemi-sternotomy have become the predominant incisional approaches among cardiac surgeons performing minimal access aortic valve replacement. Beside the location of the incision, the arterial cannulation site represents the second major landmark of minimal access techniques for aortic valve replacement. The two most frequently used arterial cannulation sites include central aortic and peripheral femoral approaches. With the purpose of reducing surgical trauma in these patients, we have opted for a right anterior mini-thoracotomy approach with a central aortic cannulation site. This protocol describes in detail a technique for minimally invasive aortic valve replacement and provides recommendations for patient selection criteria, including cardiac computer tomography measurements. The indications and limitations of this technique, as well as its alternatives, are discussed.

Technique and Patient Selection Criteria of Right Anterior Mini-Thoracotomy for Minimal Access Aortic Valve Replacement.

Aortic valve stenosis has become the most prevalent valvular heart disease in developed countries, and is due to the aging of these populations. The incidence of the pathology increases with growing age after 65 years. Conventional surgical aortic valve replacement through median sternotomy has been the gold standard of patient care for symptomatic aortic valve stenosis. However, as the risk profile of patients worsens, other therapeutic strategies have been introduced in an attempt to maintain the excellent results obtained by the established surgical treatment. One of these approaches is represented by transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Although the outcomes of high-risk patients undergoing treatment for symptomatic aortic valve stenosis have improved with transcatheter aortic valve replacement, many patients with this condition remain candidates for surgical aortic valve replacement. In order to reduce the surgical trauma in patients who are candidates for surgical aortic valve replacement, minimally invasive approaches have garnered interest during the past decade. Since the introduction of right anterior thoracotomy for aortic valve replacement in 1993, right anterior mini-thoracotomy and upper hemi-sternotomy have become the predominant incisional approaches among cardiac surgeons performing minimal access aortic valve replacement. Beside the location of the incision, the arterial cannulation site represents the second major landmark of minimal access techniques for aortic valve replacement. The two most frequently used arterial cannulation sites include central aortic and peripheral femoral approaches. With the purpose of reducing surgical trauma in these patients, we have opted for a right anterior mini-thoracotomy approach with a central aortic cannulation site. This protocol describes in detail a technique for minimally invasive aortic valve replacement and provides recommendations for patient selection criteria, including cardiac computer tomography measurements. The indications and limitations of this technique, as well as its alternatives, are discussed.

Rapid deployment aortic valve replacement in a minimal access setting: intermediate clinical and echocardiographic outcomes†

Transcatheter procedures have overtaken conventional operations in Germany. Considering that this is a highly competitive field, a rate of 25% for minimal access aortic valve replacement seems to be disappointingly low. One way to promote minimal access techniques is through the systematic use of rapid deployment valves. A total of 143 patients underwent rapid deployment aortic valve replacement via upper right hemisternotomy between March 2012 and September 2015. All patients were followed up annually. Echocardiographic assessment of the valve was performed after 12 months. The cumulative follow-up time was 275.2 patient-years. The median follow-up time was 1.9 years. The mean age was 76.4 ± 6.2 years, and the mean logistic EuroSCORE was 11.0 ± 4.3%. Early all-cause mortality was 2.8% (n = 4). Actuarial survival after 1 year was 91.6 ± 2.4%, and after 3 years, it was 84.4 ± 3.6%. Mean transprosthetic gradient after 12 months was 10.3 ± 3.8 mmHg. New onset of higher grade paravalvular leakage did not occur during the follow-up period. Perioperatively, higher grade paravalvular leakage (aortic insufficiency >1+) occurred in 2 cases (1.4%) . Rapid deployment aortic valve replacement can be performed safely in a minimal access setting with low complication rates and good haemodynamic results. Therefore, rapid deployment valves are a relevant option in minimal access surgery.

Minimal access versus conventional aortic valve replacement: a meta-analysis of propensity-matched studies.

Conventional aortic valve replacement (CAVR) via a full sternotomy is the standard surgical approach for aortic valve replacement. Minimal access aortic valve replacement (MAAVR) is commonly performed via a partial sternotomy and a right minithoracotomy. Such procedures aim not only to reduce the invasiveness but to offer the same quality, safety and results of the conventional approach. Our goal was to compare both procedures by performing a meta-analysis of reports with risk adjustment that performed a propensity-matched analysis. Relevant articles were searched for in Medline, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Scopus database based on predefined criteria and end-points. The early and late outcomes and complications were compared in the selected studies. A total of 4558 patients from 9 studies were enrolled; 2279 (50%) underwent CAVR and 2279 (50%) underwent MAAVR. There was a significantly lower rate of postoperative low output syndrome (1.4% vs 2.3%, P = 0.05) and atrial fibrillation (11.7% vs 15.9%, P = 0.01) in the MAAVR than in the CAVR group, respectively. In contrast, aortic cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times were significantly longer in the MAAVR group (P < 0.05). Finally, the incidence of early deaths (1.5% vs 2.2%, P = 0.14), stroke (1.4% vs 2%, P = 0.20), myocardial infarction (0.4% vs 0.5%, P = 0.65), renal injury (4.5% vs 6%, P = 0.71), respiratory complications (9% vs 10.1%, P = 0.45), re-exploration for bleeding (4.9% vs 4.1%, P = 0.27) and pacemaker implantation (3.3% vs 4.1%, P = 0.31) was similar in both groups, respectively. In summary, even though MAAVR procedure, either through partial sternotomy or right minithoracotomy, provides patient satisfaction due to the smaller incision and better cosmetics, MAAVR is as safe as the CAVR procedure. Although MAAVR takes slightly longer, it was not associated with greater cardiopulmonary bypass-related adverse effects. Interestingly, MAAVR shows a lower incidence of low cardiac output syndrome and atrial fibrillation.

Percutaneous Retrograde Cardioplegia in Minimal Access Aortic Valve Replacement Reduces Aortic Cross-Clamping Time Significantly

Percutaneous Retrograde Cardioplegia in Minimal Access Aortic Valve Replacement Reduces Aortic Cross-Clamping Time Significantly

Long-term outcomes following minimal invasive versus conventional aortic valve replacement: a propensity match analysis.

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. 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. 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. 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).

A ministernotomia szerepe az aortabillentyű-sebészetben

Minimal access aortic valve replacement plays a significant role in modern cardiac surgery. The technical evolution of aortic bioprostheses, particularly sutureless valves, leads to simplify minimal access aortic valve surgery and it allows easier implantation in a narrow work field with the need of less manipulation. The aim of this study is to summarize the historical and technical aspects of minimal access aortic valve replacement, especially concentrating on sutureless valves, and to present data of own patients of the authors. Pre- and post-operative data of 13 minimal access aortic replacement cases who were operated at the Deparment of Cardiac Sugery at the University of Szeged are summarized. As compared to full sternotomy, minimal access aortic surgery is safe, and it does not require special instrumentation. It is technically more demanding but it can be learned quickly, and the overall pre- and post-operative results are not worse with the benefit of less pain and superior cosmetics.

Early outcomes after isolated aortic valve replacement with rapid deployment aortic valve

ObjectiveMinimal access aortic valve replacement is associated with favorable clinical outcomes; however, several meta-analyses have reported significantly longer crossclamp times compared with a full sternotomy. We examined the procedural and early safety outcomes after isolated rapid deployment aortic valve replacement by surgical approach in patients enrolled in the Surgical Treatment of Aortic Stenosis With a Next Generation Surgical Aortic Valve trial. MethodsThe Surgical Treatment of Aortic Stenosis With a Next Generation Surgical Aortic Valve trial was a prospective, multicenter, single-arm study, with successful implants in 287 patients with aortic valve stenosis who underwent rapid deployment aortic valve replacement using the EDWARDS INTUITY Valve System (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, Calif). Patients were evaluated perioperatively for procedural times and technical success rates; at discharge, for hospital length of stay; and, at 30 days, for early adverse events. ResultsA total of 158 patients underwent isolated aortic valve replacement through a full sternotomy (n = 71), upper hemisternotomy (n = 77), or right anterior thoracotomy (n = 10). Mean age at baseline was 75.7 ± 7.2 years. Mean aortic crossclamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times (minutes) were similar for full sternotomy and upper hemisternotomy, 43.5 ± 32.5/71.6 ± 41.8 and 43.1 ± 13.1/69.6 ± 19.1, respectively, and significantly longer for right anterior thoracotomy, 88.3 ± 18.6/122.2 ± 22.1 (P < .000). Early adverse event rates were similar, and in-hospital mortality rates were low regardless of surgical approach. ConclusionsThese data suggest that isolated rapid deployment aortic valve replacement through an upper hemisternotomy can lead to shorter crossclamp times than has been reported historically in the literature. This may facilitate minimal access aortic valve replacement by eliminating the issue of prolonged crossclamp times. Further, low in-hospital mortality and new permanent pacemaker implant rates were observed regardless of surgical approach.

Minimally Invasive Aortic Valve Replacement.

With the advent of transcatheter aortic valve replacement and the emergence of rapid deployment aortic valves, there is a resurgent interest in minimizing the trauma of surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR). The present review summarizes the history of minimal access AVR and attempts to collate the existing evidence regarding minimal access AVR.

Starting out in minimally invasive aortic valve replacement in the UK.

Here we aim to describe in detail the logical procedure and philosophical approach to establish a minimally access aortic valve replacement programme in the current era. A real example of a National Health Service Trust in the United Kingdom has been described in a step-wise manner. The outcomes of the new procedure established in this fashion are reported and the philosophical lessons learnt from the experiences are highlighted. It is hoped that this paper will act as a template for newly established surgeons to embark onto a mini-AVR programme. An open-minded and enthusiastic team will undoubtedly be able to facilitate the introduction of this 'new service'. A sensible approach will provide safe and sustainable outcomes.

Do we need sutureless or self-anchoring aortic valve prostheses?

Surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) is the 'gold standard' for the treatment of aortic valve stenosis. Due to the increasing age of the patient population (reflecting the demographic changes), the use of biological valves has increased over the past years. At the same time, a large proportion of these patients require concomitant surgical procedures in addition to AVR. Although trans-apical or trans-femoral aortic valve implantations (TAVI) have been introduced for high risk patients, they are limited to patients with isolated aortic valve pathology. Therefore, strategies for avoiding long ischemia times, as well as long periods of extra-corporeal circulation (ECC) resulting in reduced peri-operative risks should be welcomed among the surgical community. Modern 'sutureless valves' with reduced cross-clamp and cardio-pulmonary bypass times as a result of the absence of sutures, combined with excellent hemodynamics in the short and mid-term, may be an ideal solution for geriatric patients. Additionally, 'self-anchoring' valves will increase the armament of surgeons in treating 'technically difficult' group of patients needing AVR who have small calcified aortic roots and those coming back after aortic root replacement with homografts. These valves should also expand the application of minimally access AVR. Therefore, the question of whether we need 'self-anchoring valves' is not only redundant, but the time may have come for these type of valves to be considered as the 'valve of choice' for higher risk geriatric patients who may be 'high risk' for conventional valves but not ineligible for TAVIs.

Minimal access aortic valve replacement via limited skin incision and complete median sternotomy.

Surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) via complete median sternotomy is a safe and time-tested technique associated with excellent short- and long-term outcome. Over the last two decades, different minimally-invasive approaches for AVR have been developed and are increasingly being utilized. All these approaches have been developed with the main objective of decreased invasiveness and less surgical trauma. Advantages of minimal invasive AVR have been shown as better cosmesis, shorter ventilation time, decreased blood loss, shorter intensive care unit and hospital length of stay, and less postoperative pain with mortality and morbidity comparable to conventional complete median sternotomy. One well-recognized but less practiced surgical technique for surgical AVR is the complete median sternotomy via limited skin incision. This review article provides a detailed insight into the technical aspects, outcomes, advantages and disadvantages associated with minimal access AVR via limited skin incision and complete median sternotomy.

Reoperative minimal access aortic valve replacement.

Reoperative minimal access aortic valve replacement (AVR) is performed through an upper hemisternotomy with peripheral cannulation. This approach limits dissection of mediastinum and especially the left internal mammary artery (LIMA) graft in patients with previous coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) thus minimizing trauma to the patient. This approach is safe and feasible and may have some benefit over conventional full sternotomy in terms of mortality and morbidity.

Aortic valve replacement in octogenarians: Impact of less invasivity on postoperative outcome

Objective Due to increasing life expectancy in industrialized countries, the number of octogenarian patients undergoing an open heart procedure is increasing. In these patients with high comorbidity less invasive procedures could probably improve the postoperative outcome. The aim of this study was to determine the effects of minimal access aortic valve replacement (AVR) in octogenarians on postoperative morbidity and mortality. Methods Partial upper sternotomy has become the standard approach to isolated aortic valve surgery in patients without any previous cardiac surgery at our institution. Almost 20% of the 353 patients who underwent AVR through a partial upper sternotomy between 1998 and 2006 were octogenarians. These 70 patients (16 male, 54 female) had a mean age of 81.8years (80–95years). We reviewed retrospectively data on these patients. Results The patients had a mean logistic Euroscore of 9.1 (0.9–29.2) and a mean left ventricular ejection fraction of 54.7% (20–70%). Mean cross clamp time and mean bypass time were 63.3 min (33–149min) and 108.5min (52–290min), respectively. In 3 patients (4.3%) a conversion into full median sternotomy was necessary due to bleeding ( n =2) and low cardiac output ( n =1). Mean ICU and total hospital stay were 2.8 and 11.7days, respectively. Postoperative bleeding complications were not observed. Deep sternum infection occured in 2 patients (2.8%). None of the patients had to be reoperated for prosthetic valve dysfunction or endocarditis. The hospital mortality rate was 5.7%. Conclusions AVR through a partial upper sternotomy in octagenarians is a safe and effective technique with less invasivity resulting in satisfying postoperative morbidity and mortality.

Minimal invasive access of aortic valve replacement in compares to conventional access: postoperative morbidity and long term survival

Aims: Minimally invasive techniques are progressively challenging traditional approaches in cardiothoracic surgery. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes in patients undergoing minimal (MIC) versus conventional (CON) access aortic valve replacement.