Minimally invasive versus conventional aortic valve operations: a prospective study in 120 patients

Abstract

Background: Risk evaluation comparing the minimally invasive and standard aortic valve operations has not been studied.

Methods: Four surgeons were randomly assigned to perform the minimally invasive (L-shaped sternotomy) (group 1) or the conventional (group 2) operation in 120 patients exclusively.

Results: In both groups (n = 60) a CarboMedics prothesis was implanted in 90% of patients. There was no significant difference in the cross-clamping period (group 1, 60 minutes; range, 35 to 116 minutes), in the duration of extracorporal circulation (group 1, 84 minutes; range, 51 to 179 minutes) or in the time from skin-to-skin (group 1, 195 minutes; range, 145 to 466 minutes). Patients in group 1 were extubated earlier (p<0.001), the postoperative blood loss was less (p<0.001), and the need for analgesics was reduced (p<0.05). In 5 patients in group 1 a redo operation was required for bleeding (p>0.05), 3 patients in group 1 required a redo operation because of paravalvular leakage or endocarditis (p>0.05), the 30-day mortality rate was 1.6%. Overall the survival rate was 95% in group 1 and 97% in group 2 (mean follow-up, 294 days; range, 30 to 745 days).

Conclusion: The advantages of minimally invasive aortic valve operation include reduced trauma from incision and duration of ventilation, decreased blood loss and postoperative pain, the avoidance of groin cannulation, and a cosmetically attractive result. Simple equipment is used with a high degree of effectiveness and with no sacrifice of safety. Our study demonstrated the practicability and reliability of this new method.