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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |