Cargando…

Propensity matched analysis of minimally invasive versus conventional isolated aortic valve replacement

OBJECTIVE: To analyse the early and mid-term outcome of patients undergoing conventional aortic valve replacement (AVR) versus minimally invasive via hemi-sternotomy aortic valve replacement (MIAVR). METHODS: A single centre retrospective study involving 653 patients who underwent isolated aortic va...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Oo, Shwe, Khan, Amilah, Chan, Jeremy, Juneja, Sanjay, Caputo, Massimo, Angelini, Gianni, Rajakaruna, Cha, Vohra, Hunaid A
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9932618/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34515578
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/02676591211045802
_version_ 1784889494303932416
author Oo, Shwe
Khan, Amilah
Chan, Jeremy
Juneja, Sanjay
Caputo, Massimo
Angelini, Gianni
Rajakaruna, Cha
Vohra, Hunaid A
author_facet Oo, Shwe
Khan, Amilah
Chan, Jeremy
Juneja, Sanjay
Caputo, Massimo
Angelini, Gianni
Rajakaruna, Cha
Vohra, Hunaid A
author_sort Oo, Shwe
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To analyse the early and mid-term outcome of patients undergoing conventional aortic valve replacement (AVR) versus minimally invasive via hemi-sternotomy aortic valve replacement (MIAVR). METHODS: A single centre retrospective study involving 653 patients who underwent isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR) either via conventional AVR (n = 516) or MIAVR (n = 137) between August 2015 and March 2020. Using pre-operative characteristics, patients were propensity matched (PM) to produce 114 matched pairs. Assessment of peri-operative outcomes, early and mid-term survival and echocardiographic parameters was performed. RESULTS: The mean age of the PM conventional AVR group was 71.5 (±8.9) years and the number of male (n = 57) and female (n = 57) patients were equal. PM MIAVR group mean age was 71.1 (±9.5) years, and 47% of patients were female (n = 54) and 53% male (n = 60). Median follow-up for PM conventional AVR and MIAVR patients was 3.4 years (minimum 0, maximum 4.8 years) and 3.4 years (minimum 0, maximum 4.8 years), respectively. Larger sized aortic valve prostheses were inserted in the MIAVR group (median 23, IQR = 4) versus conventional AVR group (median 21, IQR = 2; p = 0.02, SMD = 0.34). Cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time was longer with MIAVR (94.4 ± 19.5 minutes) compared to conventional AVR (83.1 ± 33.3; p = 0.0001, SMD = 0.41). Aortic cross-clamp (AoX) time was also longer in MIAVR (71.6 ± 16.5 minutes) compared to conventional AVR (65.0 ± 52.8; p = 0.0001, SMD = 0.17). There were no differences in the early post-operative complications and mortality between the two groups. Follow-up echocardiographic data showed significant difference in mean aortic valve gradients between conventional AVR and MIAVR groups (17.3 ± 8.2 mmHg vs 13.0 ± 5.1 mmHg, respectively; p = 0.01, SMD = −0.65). There was no significant difference between conventional AVR and MIAVR in mid-term survival at 3 years (88.6% vs 92.1%; log-rank test p = 0.31). CONCLUSION: Despite the longer CPB and AoX times in the MIAVR group, there was no significant difference in early complications, mortality and mid-term survival between MIAVR and conventional AVR.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9932618
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-99326182023-02-17 Propensity matched analysis of minimally invasive versus conventional isolated aortic valve replacement Oo, Shwe Khan, Amilah Chan, Jeremy Juneja, Sanjay Caputo, Massimo Angelini, Gianni Rajakaruna, Cha Vohra, Hunaid A Perfusion Original Papers OBJECTIVE: To analyse the early and mid-term outcome of patients undergoing conventional aortic valve replacement (AVR) versus minimally invasive via hemi-sternotomy aortic valve replacement (MIAVR). METHODS: A single centre retrospective study involving 653 patients who underwent isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR) either via conventional AVR (n = 516) or MIAVR (n = 137) between August 2015 and March 2020. Using pre-operative characteristics, patients were propensity matched (PM) to produce 114 matched pairs. Assessment of peri-operative outcomes, early and mid-term survival and echocardiographic parameters was performed. RESULTS: The mean age of the PM conventional AVR group was 71.5 (±8.9) years and the number of male (n = 57) and female (n = 57) patients were equal. PM MIAVR group mean age was 71.1 (±9.5) years, and 47% of patients were female (n = 54) and 53% male (n = 60). Median follow-up for PM conventional AVR and MIAVR patients was 3.4 years (minimum 0, maximum 4.8 years) and 3.4 years (minimum 0, maximum 4.8 years), respectively. Larger sized aortic valve prostheses were inserted in the MIAVR group (median 23, IQR = 4) versus conventional AVR group (median 21, IQR = 2; p = 0.02, SMD = 0.34). Cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time was longer with MIAVR (94.4 ± 19.5 minutes) compared to conventional AVR (83.1 ± 33.3; p = 0.0001, SMD = 0.41). Aortic cross-clamp (AoX) time was also longer in MIAVR (71.6 ± 16.5 minutes) compared to conventional AVR (65.0 ± 52.8; p = 0.0001, SMD = 0.17). There were no differences in the early post-operative complications and mortality between the two groups. Follow-up echocardiographic data showed significant difference in mean aortic valve gradients between conventional AVR and MIAVR groups (17.3 ± 8.2 mmHg vs 13.0 ± 5.1 mmHg, respectively; p = 0.01, SMD = −0.65). There was no significant difference between conventional AVR and MIAVR in mid-term survival at 3 years (88.6% vs 92.1%; log-rank test p = 0.31). CONCLUSION: Despite the longer CPB and AoX times in the MIAVR group, there was no significant difference in early complications, mortality and mid-term survival between MIAVR and conventional AVR. SAGE Publications 2021-09-13 2023-03 /pmc/articles/PMC9932618/ /pubmed/34515578 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/02676591211045802 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Original Papers
Oo, Shwe
Khan, Amilah
Chan, Jeremy
Juneja, Sanjay
Caputo, Massimo
Angelini, Gianni
Rajakaruna, Cha
Vohra, Hunaid A
Propensity matched analysis of minimally invasive versus conventional isolated aortic valve replacement
title Propensity matched analysis of minimally invasive versus conventional isolated aortic valve replacement
title_full Propensity matched analysis of minimally invasive versus conventional isolated aortic valve replacement
title_fullStr Propensity matched analysis of minimally invasive versus conventional isolated aortic valve replacement
title_full_unstemmed Propensity matched analysis of minimally invasive versus conventional isolated aortic valve replacement
title_short Propensity matched analysis of minimally invasive versus conventional isolated aortic valve replacement
title_sort propensity matched analysis of minimally invasive versus conventional isolated aortic valve replacement
topic Original Papers
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9932618/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34515578
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/02676591211045802
work_keys_str_mv AT ooshwe propensitymatchedanalysisofminimallyinvasiveversusconventionalisolatedaorticvalvereplacement
AT khanamilah propensitymatchedanalysisofminimallyinvasiveversusconventionalisolatedaorticvalvereplacement
AT chanjeremy propensitymatchedanalysisofminimallyinvasiveversusconventionalisolatedaorticvalvereplacement
AT junejasanjay propensitymatchedanalysisofminimallyinvasiveversusconventionalisolatedaorticvalvereplacement
AT caputomassimo propensitymatchedanalysisofminimallyinvasiveversusconventionalisolatedaorticvalvereplacement
AT angelinigianni propensitymatchedanalysisofminimallyinvasiveversusconventionalisolatedaorticvalvereplacement
AT rajakarunacha propensitymatchedanalysisofminimallyinvasiveversusconventionalisolatedaorticvalvereplacement
AT vohrahunaida propensitymatchedanalysisofminimallyinvasiveversusconventionalisolatedaorticvalvereplacement