Download PDF
Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2023; 71(05): 376-386
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1736206
Original Cardiovascular

Is It Reasonable to Perform Isolated SAVR by Residents in the TAVI Era?

Stephen Gerfer  ‡   *
1   Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Heart Center, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
,
Kaveh Eghbalzadeh  ‡   *
1   Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Heart Center, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
,
Sarah Brinkschröder
1   Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Heart Center, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
,
Ilija Djordjevic 
1   Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Heart Center, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
,
Christian Rustenbach
1   Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Heart Center, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
,
Parwis Rahmanian
1   Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Heart Center, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
,
Navid Mader
1   Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Heart Center, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
,
Elmar Kuhn‡   **
1   Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Heart Center, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
,
Thorsten Wahlers‡   **
1   Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Heart Center, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints All articles of this category

Abstract

Background The role of conventional surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is increasingly questioned since the indication for transcatheter aortic valve implantations (TAVIs) is currently extended. While the number of patients referred to SAVR decreases, it is unclear if SAVR should be performed by junior resident surgeons in the course of a heart surgeons training.

Methods Patients with isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR) were analyzed with respect to the surgeon's qualification. AVR performed by resident surgeons was compared with AVR by senior surgeons. The collective was analyzed with respect to clinical short-term outcomes comparing full sternotomy (FS) with minimally invasive surgery and ministernotomy (MS) with right anterior thoracotomy (RAT) after a 1:1 propensity score matching.

Results The 30-day all-cause mortality was 2.3 and 3.4% for resident versus senior AVR groups, cerebrovascular event rates were 1.1 versus 2.6%, and no cases of significant paravalvular leak were detected. Clinical short-term outcomes between FS and minimally invasive access, as well after MS and RAT were comparable.

Conclusion Our current data show feasibility and safety of conventional SAVR procedure performed by resident surgeons in the era of TAVI. Minimally invasive surgery should be trained and performed in higher volumes early in the educational process as it is a safe treatment option.

Keywords

aortic stenosis - surgical aortic valve replacement - full sternotomy - minimal invasive - upper-J ministernotomy - right anterior thoracotomy - resident - senior - surgical technique

Authors' Contribution

S.G. and K.E. contributed to study design, data collection, data analysis and interpretation, and writing of the manuscript; both authors contributed equally to this work. S.B., I.D., and C.R. contributed to data collection and data analysis. P.R. and N.M. contributed to data analysis and interpretation. E.K. and T.W. contributed equally to data analysis and interpretation, review, and correction of the manuscript.


* These authors contributed equally to this work as shared first authors.


** These authors contributed equally to this work as shared last authors.




Publication History

Received: 09 March 2021

Accepted: 13 July 2021

Article published online:
22 November 2021

© 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Vahanian A, Otto CM. Risk stratification of patients with aortic stenosis. Eur Heart J 2010; 31 (04) 416-423
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Frilling B, von Renteln-Kruse W, Riess FC. Evaluation of operative risk in elderly patients undergoing aortic valve replacement: the predictive value of operative risk scores. Cardiology 2010; 116 (03) 213-218
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Mack MJ, Leon MB, Smith CR. et al; PARTNER 1 trial investigators. 5-year outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement or surgical aortic valve replacement for high surgical risk patients with aortic stenosis (PARTNER 1): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2015; 385 (9986): 2477-2484
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Leon MB, Smith CR, Mack MJ. et al; PARTNER 2 Investigators. Transcatheter or surgical aortic-valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients. N Engl J Med 2016; 374 (17) 1609-1620
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Smith CR, Leon MB, Mack MJ. et al; PARTNER Trial Investigators. Transcatheter versus surgical aortic-valve replacement in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med 2011; 364 (23) 2187-2198
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Popma JJ, Adams DH, Reardon MJ. et al; CoreValve United States Clinical Investigators. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement using a self-expanding bioprosthesis in patients with severe aortic stenosis at extreme risk for surgery. J Am Coll Cardiol 2014; 63 (19) 1972-1981
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Gleason TG, Reardon MJ, Popma JJ. et al; CoreValve U.S. Pivotal High Risk Trial Clinical Investigators. 5-year outcomes of self-expanding transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in high-risk patients. J Am Coll Cardiol 2018; 72 (22) 2687-2696
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Adams DH, Popma JJ, Reardon MJ. et al; U.S. CoreValve Clinical Investigators. Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement with a self-expanding prosthesis. N Engl J Med 2014; 370 (19) 1790-1798
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Baumgartner H, Falk V, Bax JJ. et al; ESC Scientific Document Group. 2017 ESC/EACTS Guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease. Eur Heart J 2017; 38 (36) 2739-2791
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Beckmann A, Meyer R, Lewandowski J, Markewitz A, Harringer W. German Heart Surgery Report 2018: the annual updated registry of the German Society for Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2019; 67 (05) 331-344
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Mack MJ, Leon MB, Thourani VH. et al; PARTNER 3 Investigators. Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement with a balloon-expandable valve in low-risk patients. N Engl J Med 2019; 380 (18) 1695-1705
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Beckmann A, Meyer R, Lewandowski J, Markewitz A, Gummert J. German Heart Surgery Report 2019: the annual updated registry of the German Society for Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2020; 68 (04) 263-276
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Nair SK, Sudarshan CD, Thorpe BS. et al. Mini-Stern Trial: a randomized trial comparing mini-sternotomy to full median sternotomy for aortic valve replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2018; 156 (06) 2124-2132.e31
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Popma JJ, Deeb GM, Yakubov SJ. et al; Evolut Low Risk Trial Investigators. Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement with a self-expanding valve in low-risk patients. N Engl J Med 2019; 380 (18) 1706-1715
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Athappan G, Patvardhan E, Tuzcu EM. et al. Incidence, predictors, and outcomes of aortic regurgitation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: meta-analysis and systematic review of literature. J Am Coll Cardiol 2013; 61 (15) 1585-1595
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Fadahunsi OO, Olowoyeye A, Ukaigwe A. et al. Incidence, predictors, and outcomes of permanent pacemaker implantation following transcatheter aortic valve replacement: analysis from the U.S. Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology TVT Registry. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2016; 9 (21) 2189-2199
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Terwelp MD, Thourani VH, Zhao Y. et al. Minimally invasive versus transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement: a propensity matched study. J Heart Valve Dis 2017; 26 (02) 146-154
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Umminger J, Reitz M, Rojas SV. et al. Does the surgeon's experience have an impact on outcome after total arterial revascularization with composite T-grafts? A risk factor analysis. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2016; 23 (05) 749-756
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Bowdish ME, Hui DS, Cleveland JD. et al. A comparison of aortic valve replacement via an anterior right minithoracotomy with standard sternotomy: a propensity score analysis of 492 patients. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2016; 49 (02) 456-463
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Brown ML, McKellar SH, Sundt TM, Schaff HV. Ministernotomy versus conventional sternotomy for aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2009; 137 (03) 670-679.e5
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Lamelas J, Sarria A, Santana O, Pineda AM, Lamas GA. Outcomes of minimally invasive valve surgery versus median sternotomy in patients age 75 years or greater. Ann Thorac Surg 2011; 91 (01) 79-84
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Mihaljevic T, Cohn LH, Unic D, Aranki SF, Couper GS, Byrne JG. One thousand minimally invasive valve operations: early and late results. Ann Surg 2004; 240 (03) 529-534 , discussion 534
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Murtuza B, Pepper JR, Stanbridge RD. et al. Minimal access aortic valve replacement: is it worth it?. Ann Thorac Surg 2008; 85 (03) 1121-1131
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Merk DR, Lehmann S, Holzhey DM. et al. Minimal invasive aortic valve replacement surgery is associated with improved survival: a propensity-matched comparison. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2015; 47 (01) 11-17 , discussion 17
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Malaisrie SC, Barnhart GR, Farivar RS. et al. Current era minimally invasive aortic valve replacement: techniques and practice. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2014; 147 (01) 6-14
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Qureshi A, Vergis A, Jimenez C. et al. MIS training in Canada: a national survey of general surgery residents. Surg Endosc 2011; 25 (09) 3057-3065
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Saxena A, Dinh D, Smith JA, Reid CM, Shardey GC, Newcomb AE. Excellent short- and long-term outcomes after concomitant aortic valve replacement and coronary artery bypass grafting performed by surgeons in training. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2013; 145 (02) 334-340
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Murzi M, Caputo M, Aresu G, Duggan S, Angelini GD. Training residents in off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery: a 14-year experience. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2012; 143 (06) 1247-1253
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Gopaldas RR, Bakaeen FG, Dao TK. et al. Outcomes of concomitant aortic valve replacement and coronary artery bypass grafting at teaching hospitals versus nonteaching hospitals. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2012; 143 (03) 648-655
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Chen KC, Adams C, Stitt LW, Guo LR. Safety and efficiency assessment of training Canadian cardiac surgery residents to perform aortic valve surgery. Can J Surg 2013; 56 (03) 180-186
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Baskett RJ, Buth KJ, Legaré JF. et al. Is it safe to train residents to perform cardiac surgery?. Ann Thorac Surg 2002; 74 (04) 1043-1048 , discussion 1048–1049
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Holzhey DM, Seeburger J, Misfeld M, Borger MA, Mohr FW. Learning minimally invasive mitral valve surgery: a cumulative sum sequential probability analysis of 3895 operations from a single high-volume center. Circulation 2013; 128 (05) 483-491
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Soppa G, Yates M, Viviano A. et al. Trainees can learn minimally invasive aortic valve replacement without compromising safety. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2015; 20 (04) 458-462
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar