Midterm Results and Quality of Life after Minimally Invasive vs. Conventional Aortic Valve Replacement

Abstract

Background: This study compares early and mid-term results as well as the quality of life (QOL) between the minimally invasive and conventional aortic valve replacement (AVR). Methods: Between 7/97 and 4/01, 70 patients (mean age 64.3 ± 1.3 years) underwent minimally invasive AVR (group M) through an L-shaped ministernotomy. The results were compared to those of 70 conventional AVR (group C) patients during the same period. Patients were equally matched according to age, sex, ejection fraction, valvular lesion, and valve prosthesis. In groups M and C, follow-up was 98.5 % and 95.4 % complete and averaged 34.0 ± 10.3 and 33.1 ± 12.9 months, respectively. Results: There were no hospital deaths in group M but two deaths in group C (p = n. s.). Conversion to full sternotomy was necessary in two group M patients. Cross-clamping time (71 ± 15 min vs. 58 ± 18 min), cardiopulmonary bypass time (105 ± 22 min vs. 84 ± 24 min), and time of surgery (228 ± 45 min vs. 184 ± 48 min) were significantly longer in group M. No statistically significant differences between the two groups for postoperative ventilation time, transfusion rate, ICU stay or length of hospital stay were recorded. At the end of follow-up, 98.5 % vs. 96.9 % of the patients were free of thromboembolism (p = n. s.), 100.0 % vs. 96.9 % were free of endocarditis (p = n. s.), and 98.5 % vs. 100.0 % were free of reoperation (p = n. s.) in group M compared to group C. Survival was 97.0 % vs. 91.9 % (p = ns). No differences in any of the 8 QOL categories, in patient satisfaction with the operative result or in judgment of the cosmetic aspect were noted among groups. Conclusions: This study has failed to show any advantage of minimally invasive AVR in early or midterm follow-up.

Minimally invasive - aortic valve surgery - quality of life

References

• 1 Cosgrove D M, Sabik J F. Minimally invasive approach for aortic valve operations.  Ann Thorac Surg. 1996;  62 596-597
• 2 Konertz W, Waldenberger F, Schmutzler M, Ritter J, Liu J. Minimal access valve surgery through superior partial sternotomy: a preliminary study.  J Heart Valve Dis. 1996;  5 638-640
• 3 Svensson L G, D'Agostino R S. ‘J’ incision minimal-access valve operations.  Ann Thorac Surg. 1998;  66 1110-1112
• 4 Aris A, Camara M L, Montiel J, Delgado L J, Galan J, Litvan H. Ministernotomy versus median sternotomy for aortic valve replacement: a prospective, randomized study.  Ann Thorac Surg. 1999;  67 1583-1588
• 5 Nair R U, Sharpe D A. Minimally invasive reversed Z sternotomy for aortic valve replacement.  Ann Thorac Surg. 1998;  65 1165-1166
• 6 Ware J E, Kosinski M, Gandek B, Aaronson N K, Apolone G, Bech P, Brazier J, Bullinger M, Kaasa S, Leplege A, Prieto L, Sullivan M. The factor structure of the SF-36 Health Survey in 10 countries: Results from the IQOLA Project. International Quality of Life Assessment.  J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;  51 1159-1165
• 7 Bauer M, Pasic M, Ewert R, Hetzer R. Ministernotomy versus complete sternotomy for coronary bypass operations: no difference in postoperative pulmonary function.  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2001;  121 702-707
• 8 Laussen P C, Bichell D P, McGowan F X, Zurakowski D, DeMaso D R, del Nido P J. Postoperative recovery in children after minimum versus full-length sternotomy.  Ann Thorac Surg. 2000;  69 591-596
• 9 Luo W, Chang C, Chen S. Ministernotomy versus full sternotomy in congenital heart defects: a prospective randomized study.  Ann Thorac Surg. 2001;  71 473-475
• 10 Aris A, Camara M L, Casan P, Litvan H. Pulmonary function following aortic valve replacement: a comparison between ministernotomy and median sternotomy.  J Heart Valve Dis. 1999;  8 605-608
• 11 Machler H E, Bergmann P, Anelli-Monti M, Dacar D, Rehak P, Knez I, Salaymeh L, Mahla E, Rigler B. Minimally invasive versus conventional aortic valve operations: a prospective study in 120 patients.  Ann Thorac Surg. 1999;  67 1001-1005
• 12 Liu J, Sidiropoulos A, Konertz W. Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (AVR) compared to standard AVR.  Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 1999;  16 (Suppl 2) S80-83
• 13 Cooley D A. Minimally invasive valve surgery versus the conventional approach.  Ann Thorac Surg. 1998;  66 1101-1105
• 14 Ehrlich W, Skwara W, Klövekorn W-P, Roth M, Bauer E P. Do patients want minimally invasive aortic valve replacement?.  Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2000;  17 714-717

1 Presented at the 31^st annual meeting of the German Society for Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery in Leipzig, February 17 - 20, 2002