Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2003 Oct;76(4):1101-6.
doi: 10.1016/s0003-4975(03)00885-3.

Allogeneic blood transfusion requirements after minimally invasive versus conventional aortic valve replacement: a risk-adjusted analysis

Sotiris C Stamou  1 , Emmanouil I Kapetanakis, Robert Lowery, Kathleen A Jablonski, Timothy L Frankel, Paul J Corso
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Allogeneic blood transfusion requirements after minimally invasive versus conventional aortic valve replacement: a risk-adjusted analysis

Sotiris C Stamou et al. Ann Thorac Surg. 2003 Oct.

Abstract

Background: Aortic valve replacement (AVR) through a partial sternotomy (mini-AVR) has been suggested to significantly reduce postoperative morbidity compared with conventional AVR. This study sought to investigate whether mini-AVR patients require fewer transfusions than patients who had conventional AVR.

Methods: Of 511 patients who had AVR, 56 had mini-AVR and 455 had conventional AVR. A matched-case logistic regression analysis was used to adjust for these imbalances between groups.

Results: No patient in the mini-AVR cohort required conversion to a conventional AVR. Cardiopulmonary bypass time was longer in the mini-AVR group compared with the conventional AVR group, with a median of 102 minutes (range, 78 to 119 minutes) versus 75 minutes (range, 61 to 96 minutes; p < 0.01) in the conventional AVR group. A total of 31 patients (55%) in the mini-AVR group and 336 patients (74%) in the conventional sternotomy group required transfusions during their hospital stay (p < 0.01). After adjusting for differences in preoperative risk factors, year of operation, and surgeon, by matching on propensity score, the differences were not statistically significant (odds ratio = 0.84, 95% confidence interval = 0.40 to 1.75, p = 0.63).

Conclusions: Mini-AVR produces better wound cosmesis and less surgical trauma but requires more time to perform. Matched-case analysis failed to show a significant difference in blood transfusion requirements after mini-AVR compared with the conventional AVR approach.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types