Background: With prolonged life expectancy and more frequent use of biological prostheses, an increasingly higher proportion of patients are undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR) after previous sternotomy. We critically appraised the quantity and quality of evidence to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of the minimally invasive (MIrAVR) versus conventional (CrAVR) approaches for reoperative AVR.
Methods: Electronic searches were performed using six databases from their inception to April 2014. Relevant studies utilizing a MIrAVR were identified. Data were extracted and analyzed according to predefined clinical endpoints.
Results: Four single-arm and seven comparative observational studies including a total of 441 MIrAVR patients were included for quality assessment, data extraction and analysis. In-hospital mortality ranged from 0-9.5%, and was similar between the MIrAVR and CrAVR groups (RR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.39-1.54; P=0.46). Stroke rates ranged from 2.6-8% and were also similar between the two cohorts. The rates of pacemaker implantation, renal failure and reoperation for bleeding were not significantly different between the two groups. There were no reports of myocardial infarctions in the included studies. No significant difference in hospital stay was observed for the MIrAVR versus CrAVR group.
Conclusions: The current literature suggests that MIrAVR has similar efficacy and mortality outcomes compared to CrAVR without compromise to myocardial protection or hospitalization duration. It appears to be a valid alternative option for patients requiring reoperative AVR.
|Number of pages||11|
|Journal||Annals of Cardiothoracic Surgery|
|Publication status||Published - Jan 2015|