Minimally Invasive and Full Sternotomy Aortic Valve Replacements Lead to Comparable Long-Term Outcomes in Elderly Higher-Risk Patients: A Propensity-Matched Comparison

Abstract

Background: Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (AVR) via upper ministernotomy (MiniAVR) is a standard alternative to full sternotomy access. Minimally invasive cardiac surgery has been proven to provide a number of benefits to patients. The aim of this study was to compare the short- and long-term outcomes after MiniAVR versus conventional AVR via full sternotomy (FS) using a biological prosthesis in an elderly higher-risk population. Methods: Between January 2006 and July 2009, 918 consecutive patients received AVR ± additional procedures with different prostheses at our center. Amongst them, 441 received isolated AVR using a biological prosthesis (median age of 74.5; range: 52–93 years; 50% females) and formed the study population (EuroSCORE II: 3.62 ± 5.5, range: 0.7–42). In total, 137 (31.1%) of the operations were carried out through FS, and 304 (68.9%) were carried out via MiniAVR. Follow-up was complete in 96% of the cases (median of 7.6 years, 6610 patient-years). Propensity score matching (PSM) resulted in two groups of 68 patients with very similar baseline profiles. The primary endpoints were long-term survival, freedom from reoperation, and endocarditis, and the secondary endpoints were early major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs). Results: FS led to shorter cardio-pulmonary bypass and aortic cross-clamp durations: 90 (47–194) vs. 100 (46–246) min (p = 0.039) and 57 (33–156) vs. 69 (32–118) min (p = 0.006), respectively. Perioperative stroke occurred in three patients (4.4%; FS) vs. one patient (1.5%; MiniAVR) (p = 0.506). The 30-day mortality was similar in both groups (2.9%, p = 1.000). Survival at 1, 5, and 10 years was 94.1 ± 3% (FS and MiniAVR), 80.3 ± 5% vs. 75.7 ± 5%, and 45.3 ± 6% vs. 43.8 ± 6%, respectively (p = 0.767). There were two (2.9%) reoperations in each group and two thrombo-embolic events (2.9%) vs. one (1.5%) thrombo-embolic event in the MiniAVR and FS groups, respectively (p = 0.596). Conclusions: In comparison to FS, MiniAVR provided similar short- and long-term outcomes in a higher-risk elderly population receiving biological prostheses. In particular, long-term survival, freedom from reoperation, and the incidence of endocarditis were comparable. These results clearly advocate for the routine use of MiniAVR as a standard procedure for AVR, even in a high-risk population.