Full Sternotomy, Hemisternotomy, and Minithoracotomy for Aortic Valve Surgery: Is There a Difference?

Abstract

Background: This study compared perioperative results and mortality rates of different approaches to perform aortic valve replacement (AVR), describing predictors favoring one approach over the others.

Methods: All patients who underwent AVR were enrolled. The choice of the approach was left to surgeon's preference. Data were retrospectively collected, and the major baseline characteristics (including age, sex, body mass index, creatinine clearance, preoperative condition, cardiovascular risk factors, functional status, and left ventricular ejection fraction, etc.) and intraoperative variables were recorded. To adjust for differences in baseline characteristics between the study groups, a propensity score matching was performed. Linear and logistic regression analyses were performed.

Results: Partial upper hemisternotomy was performed in 820 patients (43%), right anterior minithoracotomy in 488 (26%), and median sternotomy in 599 (31%). After propensity score matching, three groups of 377 patients were obtained. Cardiopulmonary bypass and cross-clamp times were shorter in the right anterior minithoracotomy group than in the median sternotomy and partial upper hemisternotomy groups (p < 0.001). No significant differences in in-hospital mortality were observed (p = 0.9). Renal failure (odds ratio, 5.4; 95% confidence interval, 2.3 to 11.4; p < 0.0001), extracardiac arteriopathy (odds ratio, 2.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.1 to 6.7; p = 0.017), and left ventricular ejection fraction (odds ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.93 to 0.99; p = 0.009) emerged as independent predictors of in-hospital mortality.

Conclusions: Minimal-access isolated aortic valve surgery is a reproducible, safe, and effective procedure with similar outcomes and operating times compared with conventional sternotomy.