Cargando…

Mini-sternotomy versus conventional sternotomy for aortic valve replacement: a randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE: To compare clinical and health economic outcomes after manubrium-limited mini-sternotomy (intervention) and conventional median sternotomy (usual care). DESIGN: A single-blind, randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Single centre UK National Health Service tertiary hospital. PARTICIPANTS:...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hancock, Helen C, Maier, Rebecca H, Kasim, Adetayo, Mason, James, Murphy, Gavin, Goodwin, Andrew, Owens, W Andrew, Akowuah, Enoch
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7849899/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33514577
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-041398
_version_ 1783645376806387712
author Hancock, Helen C
Maier, Rebecca H
Kasim, Adetayo
Mason, James
Murphy, Gavin
Goodwin, Andrew
Owens, W Andrew
Akowuah, Enoch
author_facet Hancock, Helen C
Maier, Rebecca H
Kasim, Adetayo
Mason, James
Murphy, Gavin
Goodwin, Andrew
Owens, W Andrew
Akowuah, Enoch
author_sort Hancock, Helen C
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To compare clinical and health economic outcomes after manubrium-limited mini-sternotomy (intervention) and conventional median sternotomy (usual care). DESIGN: A single-blind, randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Single centre UK National Health Service tertiary hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR) surgery. INTERVENTIONS: Intervention was manubrium-limited mini-sternotomy performed using a 5–7 cm midline incision. Usual care was median sternotomy performed using a midline incision from the sternal notch to the xiphisternum. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who received a red cell transfusion postoperatively and within 7 days of index surgery. Secondary outcomes included proportion of patients receiving a non-red cell blood component transfusion and number of units transfused within 7 days and during index hospital stay, quality of life and cost-effectiveness analyses. RESULTS: 270 patients were randomised, received surgery and contributed to the intention to treat analysis. No difference between mini and conventional sternotomy in red-cell transfusion within 7 days was found; 23/135 patients in each arm received a transfusion, OR 1.0 (95% CI 0.5 to 2.0) and risk difference 0.0 (95% CI −0.1 to 0.1). Mini-sternotomy reduced chest drain losses (mean 181.6 mL (SD 138.7) vs conventional, mean 306·9 mL (SD 348.6)); this did not reduce red-cell transfusions. Mean valve size and postoperative valve function were comparable between mini-sternotomy and conventional groups; 23 mm vs 24 mm and 6/134 moderate or severe aortic regurgitation vs 3/130, respectively. Mini-sternotomy resulted in longer bypass (82.7 min (SD 23.5) vs 59.6 min (SD 15.1)) and cross-clamp times (64.1 min (SD 17.1) vs 46·3 min (SD 10.7)). Conventional sternotomy was more cost-effective with only a 5.8% probability of mini-sternotomy being cost-effective at a willingness to pay of £20 000/QALY (Quality Adjusted Life Years). CONCLUSIONS: AVR via mini-sternotomy did not reduce red blood cell transfusion within 7 days following surgery when compared with conventional sternotomy. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN29567910; Results.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7849899
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-78498992021-02-02 Mini-sternotomy versus conventional sternotomy for aortic valve replacement: a randomised controlled trial Hancock, Helen C Maier, Rebecca H Kasim, Adetayo Mason, James Murphy, Gavin Goodwin, Andrew Owens, W Andrew Akowuah, Enoch BMJ Open Surgery OBJECTIVE: To compare clinical and health economic outcomes after manubrium-limited mini-sternotomy (intervention) and conventional median sternotomy (usual care). DESIGN: A single-blind, randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Single centre UK National Health Service tertiary hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR) surgery. INTERVENTIONS: Intervention was manubrium-limited mini-sternotomy performed using a 5–7 cm midline incision. Usual care was median sternotomy performed using a midline incision from the sternal notch to the xiphisternum. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who received a red cell transfusion postoperatively and within 7 days of index surgery. Secondary outcomes included proportion of patients receiving a non-red cell blood component transfusion and number of units transfused within 7 days and during index hospital stay, quality of life and cost-effectiveness analyses. RESULTS: 270 patients were randomised, received surgery and contributed to the intention to treat analysis. No difference between mini and conventional sternotomy in red-cell transfusion within 7 days was found; 23/135 patients in each arm received a transfusion, OR 1.0 (95% CI 0.5 to 2.0) and risk difference 0.0 (95% CI −0.1 to 0.1). Mini-sternotomy reduced chest drain losses (mean 181.6 mL (SD 138.7) vs conventional, mean 306·9 mL (SD 348.6)); this did not reduce red-cell transfusions. Mean valve size and postoperative valve function were comparable between mini-sternotomy and conventional groups; 23 mm vs 24 mm and 6/134 moderate or severe aortic regurgitation vs 3/130, respectively. Mini-sternotomy resulted in longer bypass (82.7 min (SD 23.5) vs 59.6 min (SD 15.1)) and cross-clamp times (64.1 min (SD 17.1) vs 46·3 min (SD 10.7)). Conventional sternotomy was more cost-effective with only a 5.8% probability of mini-sternotomy being cost-effective at a willingness to pay of £20 000/QALY (Quality Adjusted Life Years). CONCLUSIONS: AVR via mini-sternotomy did not reduce red blood cell transfusion within 7 days following surgery when compared with conventional sternotomy. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN29567910; Results. BMJ Publishing Group 2021-01-29 /pmc/articles/PMC7849899/ /pubmed/33514577 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-041398 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
spellingShingle Surgery
Hancock, Helen C
Maier, Rebecca H
Kasim, Adetayo
Mason, James
Murphy, Gavin
Goodwin, Andrew
Owens, W Andrew
Akowuah, Enoch
Mini-sternotomy versus conventional sternotomy for aortic valve replacement: a randomised controlled trial
title Mini-sternotomy versus conventional sternotomy for aortic valve replacement: a randomised controlled trial
title_full Mini-sternotomy versus conventional sternotomy for aortic valve replacement: a randomised controlled trial
title_fullStr Mini-sternotomy versus conventional sternotomy for aortic valve replacement: a randomised controlled trial
title_full_unstemmed Mini-sternotomy versus conventional sternotomy for aortic valve replacement: a randomised controlled trial
title_short Mini-sternotomy versus conventional sternotomy for aortic valve replacement: a randomised controlled trial
title_sort mini-sternotomy versus conventional sternotomy for aortic valve replacement: a randomised controlled trial
topic Surgery
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7849899/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33514577
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-041398
work_keys_str_mv AT hancockhelenc ministernotomyversusconventionalsternotomyforaorticvalvereplacementarandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT maierrebeccah ministernotomyversusconventionalsternotomyforaorticvalvereplacementarandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT kasimadetayo ministernotomyversusconventionalsternotomyforaorticvalvereplacementarandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT masonjames ministernotomyversusconventionalsternotomyforaorticvalvereplacementarandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT murphygavin ministernotomyversusconventionalsternotomyforaorticvalvereplacementarandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT goodwinandrew ministernotomyversusconventionalsternotomyforaorticvalvereplacementarandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT owenswandrew ministernotomyversusconventionalsternotomyforaorticvalvereplacementarandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT akowuahenoch ministernotomyversusconventionalsternotomyforaorticvalvereplacementarandomisedcontrolledtrial