Whether minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MIAVR) offers an advantage over conventional AVR (CAVR) remains a matter of debate. Although some studies have suggested better postoperative outcomes with MIAVR, technical challenges and longer operative times remain major obstacles to the adoption of these techniques. In this meta-analysis, we compare the reported immediate postoperative outcomes of both approaches.
Methods:
Cochrane, MEDLINE, and Embase® databases were searched from inception until January 2022 for studies reporting immediate postoperative outcomes of MIAVR and CAVR. Studies were excluded if they reported on concomitant procedures or enrolled pediatric patients. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed using the restricted maximum likelihood estimator with Hartung–Knapp adjustment.
Results:
The literature search yielded 3,921 articles, of which 75 were included in this meta-analysis. The most common techniques were ministernotomy and minithoracotomy. MIAVR was associated with lower 30-day mortality than CAVR (odds ratio [OR] = 0.65, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.54 to 0.78, I2 = 0%, P < 0.001). The length of stay (LOS) in the hospital (standardized mean difference [SMD] = −0.44, 95% CI: −0.61 to −0.26, P < 0.001) and in the intensive care unit (SMD = −0.36, 95% CI: −0.57 to −0.15, P < 0.001) were shorter for MIAVR. Individual comparisons of ministernotomy and minithoracotomy to CAVR also yielded similar results. However, aortic cross-clamping and cardiopulmonary bypass times were longer for MIAVR.
Conclusions:
Our meta-analysis suggests that minimally invasive approaches to AVR may provide advantages beyond cosmesis. Despite longer operative times, MIAVR was associated with earlier recovery and shorter hospital LOS. These findings were consistent for both minithoracotomy and ministernotomy.
GoodmanLRKayHRTeplickSK, et al. Complications of median sternotomy: computed tomographic evaluation. AJR Am J Roentgenol1983; 141: 225–230.
2.
Di BaccoLMiceliA and
GlauberM. Minimally invasive aortic valve surgery. J Thorac Dis2021; 13: 1945–1959.
3.
BrunoPCammertoniFRosenhekR, et al. Improved patient recovery with minimally invasive aortic valve surgery: a propensity-matched study. Innovations2019; 14: 419–427.
4.
DetterCDeuseTBoehmDH, et al. Midterm results and quality of life after minimally invasive vs. conventional aortic valve replacement. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2002; 50: 337–341.
5.
BridgewaterBSteynRSRayS, et al. Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement through a transverse sternotomy: a word of caution. Heart1998; 79: 605–607.
6.
NadeemRAgarwalSJawedS, et al. Impact of cardiopulmonary bypass time on postoperative duration of mechanical ventilation in patients undergoing cardiovascular surgeries: a systemic review and regression of metadata. Cureus2019; 11: e6088.
7.
GilmanovDFarnetiPAFerrariniMet al. Full sternotomy versus right anterior minithoracotomy for isolated aortic valve replacement in octogenarians: a propensity-matched study. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg2015; 20: 732–741.
8.
NeelyRCBoskovskiMTGosevIet al. Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement versus aortic valve replacement through full sternotomy: the Brigham and Women’s Hospital experience. Ann Cardiothorac Surg 2015; 4: 38–48.
9.
BorgerMAMoustafineVConradiL, et al. A randomized multicenter trial of minimally invasive rapid deployment versus conventional full sternotomy aortic valve replacement. Ann Thorac Surg2015; 99: 17–25.
10.
BowdishMEHuiDSClevelandJD, 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 Surg2016; 49: 456–463.
11.
BrinkmanWTHoffmanWDeweyTM, et al. Aortic valve replacement surgery: comparison of outcomes in matched sternotomy and PORT ACCESS groups. Ann Thorac Surg 2010; 90: 131–135.
12.
CalderonJRichebePGuibaudJP, et al. Prospective randomized study of early pulmonary evaluation of patients scheduled for aortic valve surgery performed by ministernotomy or total median sternotomy. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2009; 23: 795–801.
13.
CammertoniFBrunoPRosenhekRet al. Minimally invasive aortic valve surgery in octogenarians: reliable option or fallback solution?Innovations2021; 16: 34–42.
14.
ChienSClarkCMaheshwariS, et al. Benefits of rapid deployment aortic valve replacement with a mini upper sternotomy. J Cardiothorac Surg2020; 15: 226.
15.
CorbiPRahmatiMDonalE, et al. Prospective comparison of minimally invasive and standard techniques for aortic valve replacement: initial experience in the first hundred patients. J Card Surg2003; 18: 133–139.
16.
DalénMOliveiraDaSilvaCSartipyUet al. Comparison of right ventricular function after ministernotomy and full sternotomy aortic valve replacement: a randomized study. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg2018; 26: 790–797.
17.
De SmetJMRondeletBJansensJL, et al. Assessment based on EuroSCORE of ministernotomy for aortic valve replacement. Asian Cardiovasc Thorac Ann2004; 12: 53–57.
18.
DoganSDzemaliOWimmer-GreineckerG, et al. Minimally invasive versus conventional aortic valve replacement: a prospective randomized trial. J Heart Valve Dis2003; 12: 76–80.
19.
DollNBorgerMAHainJ, et al. Minimal access aortic valve replacement: effects on morbidity and resource utilization. Ann Thorac Surg2002; 74: S1318–S1322.
20.
FerreiraRTRochaeSilvaR and
MarchiE. Aortic valve replacement: treatment by sternotomy versus minimally invasive approach. Braz J Cardiovasc Surg2016; 31: 422–427.
21.
Fortunato JúniorJAFernandesAGSescaJRet al. Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement: an alternative to the conventional technique. Rev Bras Cir Cardiovasc2012; 27: 570–582.
22.
KopjarTGasparovicHMestresCA, et al. Meta-analysis of concomitant mitral valve repair and coronary artery bypass surgery versus isolated coronary artery bypass surgery in patients with moderate ischaemic mitral regurgitation. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg2016; 50: 212–222.
23.
GhantaRKLaparDJKernJA, et al. Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement provides equivalent outcomes at reduced cost compared with conventional aortic valve replacement: a real-world multi-institutional analysis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2015; 149: 1060–1065.
24.
GilmanovDFarnetiPSolinasM, et al. Severe mitral regurgitation in patients with postinfarction interventricular septal defect: a simple way of simultaneous valve repair. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg2013; 43: 184–186.
25.
GlauberMMiceliAGilmanovD, et al. Right anterior minithoracotomy versus conventional aortic valve replacement: a propensity score matched study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2013; 145: 1222–1226.
26.
GlowerDDDesaiBSHughesGC, et al. Aortic valve replacement via right minithoracotomy versus median sternotomy: a propensity score analysis. Innovations2014; 9: 75–81.
27.
GunaydinSOzisikKGunertemOE, et al. Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement on minimally invasive extracorporeal circulation: going beyond aesthetics. J Extra Corpor Technol2020; 52: 90–95.
28.
AliahmedHMAKaraliusRValaikaA, et al. Efficacy of aortic valve replacement through full sternotomy and minimal invasion (ministernotomy). Medicina2018; 54: 26.
29.
HancockHCMaierRHKasimA, et al. Mini-sternotomy versus conventional sternotomy for aortic valve replacement: a randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open2021; 11: e041398.
30.
HiraokaAKuinoseMChikazawaG, et al. Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement surgery: comparison of port-access and conventional standard approach. Circ J2011; 75: 1656–1660.
31.
HiraokaATotsugawaTKuinoseM, et al. Propensity score-matched analysis of minimally invasive aortic valve replacement. Circ J2014; 78: 2876–2881.
32.
HirjiSAFunamotoMLeeJ, et al. Minimally invasive versus full sternotomy aortic valve replacement in low-risk patients: which will stand against transcatheter aortic valve replacement?Surgery2018; 164: 282–287.
33.
ItoYNakamuraYYasumotoY, et al. Surgical outcomes of minimally invasive aortic valve replacement via right mini-thoracotomy for hemodialysis patients. Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2022; 70: 439–444.
34.
JohnstonDRAtikFARajeswaranJ, et al. Outcomes of less invasive J-incision approach to aortic valve surgery. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2012; 144: 852–858.
35.
KenawyAAbdelbarATennysonC, et al. Is it safe to move away from a full sternotomy for aortic valve replacement?Asian Cardiovasc Thorac Ann2020; 28: 553–559.
36.
LeshnowerBGTraceCS and
BoovaRS. Port-access-assisted aortic valve replacement: a comparison of minimally invasive and conventional techniques. Heart Surg Forum2006; 9: E560–E564.
37.
LiuJSidiropoulosA and
KonertzW. Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (AVR) compared to standard AVR. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg1999; 16(suppl 2): S80–S83.
38.
LuFZhuSQLongX, et al. Clinical study of minimally invasive aortic valve replacement through a right parasternal second intercostal transverse incision: the first Chinese experience. Asian J Surg2021; 44: 1063–1068.
39.
ArisACámaraMLMontielJ, et al. Ministernotomy versus median sternotomy for aortic valve replacement: a prospective, randomized study. Ann Thorac Surg1999; 67: 1583–1588.
40.
MasielloPCoscioniEPanzaA, et al. Surgical results of aortic valve replacement via partial upper sternotomy: comparison with median sternotomy. Cardiovasc Surg2002; 10: 333–338.
41.
MerkDRLehmannSHolzheyDM, et al. Minimal invasive aortic valve replacement surgery is associated with improved survival: a propensity-matched comparison. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg2015; 47: 11–17.
42.
MeyerAvan KampenAKieferP, et al. Minithoracotomy versus full sternotomy for isolated aortic valve replacement: propensity matched data from two centers. J Card Surg2021; 36: 97–104.
43.
MikusECalviSCampoG, et al. Full sternotomy, hemisternotomy, and minithoracotomy for aortic valve surgery: is there a difference?Ann Thorac Surg2018; 106: 1782–1788.
44.
MikusECalviSBregaC, et al. Minimally invasive aortic valve surgery in obese patients: can the bigger afford the smaller?J Card Surg2021; 36: 582–588.
45.
MoustafaMAAbdelsamadAAZakariaG, et al. Minimal vs median sternotomy for aortic valve replacement. Asian Cardiovasc Thorac Ann2007; 15: 472–475.
46.
NairSKSudarshanCDThorpeBSet al. Mini-stern trial: a randomized trial comparing mini-sternotomy to full median sternotomy for aortic valve replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2018; 156: 2124–2132.
47.
NguyenTCThouraniVHPhamJQ, et al. Traditional sternotomy versus minimally invasive aortic valve replacement in patients stratified by ejection fraction. Innovations2017; 12: 33–40.
48.
OldsASaadatSAzzoliniA, et al. Improved operative and recovery times with mini-thoracotomy aortic valve replacement. J Cardiothorac Surg2019; 14: 91.
49.
AriyaratnamPLoubaniM and
GriffinSC.Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement: comparison of long-term outcomes. Asian Cardiovasc Thorac Ann2015; 23: 814–821.
50.
OoSKhanAChanJ, et al. Propensity matched analysis of minimally invasive versus conventional isolated aortic valve replacement. Perfusion2023; 38: 261–269.
51.
PaparellaDMalvindiPGSantarpinoG, et al. Full sternotomy and minimal access approaches for surgical aortic valve replacement: a multicentre propensity-matched study. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg2020; 57: 709–716.
52.
ParedesFACánovasSJGilO, et al. Minimally invasive aortic valve surgery. A safe and useful technique beyond the cosmetic benefits. Rev Esp Cardiol2013; 66: 695–699.
53.
PisanoCTotaroPTrioloOF, et al. Advantages of minimal access versus conventional aortic valve replacement in elderly or severely obese patients. Innovations2017; 12: 102–108.
54.
RajaSGHusainMSalhiyyahK, et al. Concomitant off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting results in improved in-hospital outcomes for patients with ischemic mitral regurgitation undergoing surgery. Heart Surg Forum2013; 16: E15–E20.
55.
Rodríguez-CauloEAGuijarro-ContrerasAGuzónA, et al. Quality of life after ministernotomy versus full sternotomy aortic valve replacement. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2021; 33: 328–334.
56.
RoussakisAGavalakiAContrafourisC, et al. Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement: initial experience of the 1st cardiac surgery department of Onassis Cardiac Surgery Center. A propensity score-adjusted analysis. Hellenic J Cardiol2020; 61: 346–348.
57.
RussoMJThouraniVHCohenDJ, et al. Minimally invasive versus full sternotomy for isolated aortic valve replacement in low-risk patients. Ann Thorac Surg2022; 114: 2124–2130.
58.
RuttmannEGilhoferTSUlmerH, et al. Propensity score-matched analysis of aortic valve replacement by mini-thoracotomy. J Heart Valve Dis2010; 19: 606–614.
59.
SalmasiMYPapaKMozalbatD, et al. Converging rapid deployment prostheses with minimal access surgery: analysis of early outcomes. J Cardiothorac Surg2021; 16: 355.
60.
AttiaRQHickeyGLGrantSW, et al. Minimally invasive versus conventional aortic valve replacement: a propensity-matched study from the UK national data. Innovations2016; 11: 15–23.
61.
SemsrothSMatteucci GotheRRaithYR, et al. Comparison of two minimally invasive techniques and median sternotomy in aortic valve replacement. Ann Thorac Surg2017; 104: 877–883.
62.
SharonyRGrossiEASaundersPC, et al. Propensity score analysis of a six-year experience with minimally invasive isolated aortic valve replacement. J Heart Valve Dis2004; 13: 887–893.
63.
ShehadaSEÖztürkÖWottkeM, et al. Propensity score analysis of outcomes following minimal access versus conventional aortic valve replacement. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg2016; 49: 464–470.
64.
StolińskiJPlicnerDGrudzieńG, et al. A comparison of minimally invasive and standard aortic valve replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2016; 152: 1030–1039.
65.
SuenagaESudaHKatayamaY, et al. Comparison of limited and full sternotomy in aortic valve replacement. Jpn J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2004; 52: 286–291.
66.
SzwercMFBenckartDHWiechmannRJ, et al. Partial versus full sternotomy for aortic valve replacement. Ann Thorac Surg1999; 68: 2209–2214.
67.
TabataMUmakanthanRCohnLH, et al. Early and late outcomes of 1000 minimally invasive aortic valve operations. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg2008; 33: 537–541.
68.
VanoverbekeHVan BelleghemYFrancoisK, et al. Operative outcome of minimal access aortic valve replacement versus standard procedure. Acta Chir Belg2004; 104: 440–444.
69.
VukovicPMMilojevicPStojanovicI, et al. The role of ministernotomy in aortic valve surgery-a prospective randomized study. J Card Surg2019; 34: 435–439.
70.
WelpHAHerlemannIMartensS, et al. Outcomes of aortic valve replacement via partial upper sternotomy versus conventional aortic valve replacement in obese patients. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg2018; 27: 481–486.
71.
BakirICasselmanFPWellensF, et al. Minimally invasive versus standard approach aortic valve replacement: a study in 506 patients. Ann Thorac Surg2006; 81: 1599–1604.
72.
YakubMAPauKK and
AwangY.Minimally invasive “pocket incision” aortic valve surgery. Ann Thorac Cardiovasc Surg1999; 5: 36–39.
73.
YilmazASjatskigJvan BovenWJ, et al. J-shaped versus median sternotomy for aortic valve replacement with minimal extracorporeal circuit. Scand Cardiovasc J2011; 45: 379–384.
74.
ZalléISonMEl-AlaouiM, et al. Minimally invasive and full sternotomy in aortic valve replacement: a comparative early operative outcomes. Pan Afr Med J2021; 40: 68.
75.
BangJHKimJWLeeJW, et al. Minimally invasive approaches versus conventional sternotomy for aortic valve replacement: a propensity score matching study. Korean J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2012; 45: 80–84.
76.
BonacchiMPriftiEGiuntiG, et al. Does ministernotomy improve postoperative outcome in aortic valve operation? A prospective randomized study. Ann Thorac Surg2002; 73: 460–466.
77.
BorreroÁSamboniTJPradoNet al. J-shaped upper mini-sternotomy versus full sternotomy for aortic valve replacement: a comparative study. Heart Surg Forum2020; 23: E411–E415.
78.
DalénMBiancariFRubinoAS, et al. Ministernotomy versus full sternotomy aortic valve replacement with a sutureless bioprosthesis: a multicenter study. Ann Thorac Surg2015; 99: 524–530.
79.
DalénMBiancariFRubinoAS, et al. Aortic valve replacement through full sternotomy with a stented bioprosthesis versus minimally invasive sternotomy with a sutureless bioprosthesis. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg2016; 49: 220–227.
80.
SeitzMGoldblattJPaulE, et al. Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement via right anterior mini-thoracotomy: propensity matched initial experience. Heart Lung Circ2019; 28: 320–326.
81.
TerwelpMDThouraniVHZhaoYet al. Minimally invasive versus transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement: a propensity matched study. J Heart Valve Dis2017; 26: 146–154.
82.
GasparovicIArtemiouPHudecV, et al. Long-term outcomes following minimal invasive versus conventional aortic valve replacement: a propensity match analysis. Bratisl Lek Listy2017; 118: 479–484.
83.
ChangCRazaSAltarabshehSE, et al. Minimally invasive approaches to surgical aortic valve replacement: a meta-analysis. Ann Thorac Surg2018; 106: 1881–1889.
84.
AzarfarinRAshouriNTotonchiZ, et al. Factors influencing prolonged ICU stay after open heart surgery. Res Cardiovasc Med2014; 3: e20159.
85.
AlmashrafiAElmontsriM and
AylinP. Systematic review of factors influencing length of stay in ICU after adult cardiac surgery. BMC Health Serv Res2016; 16: 318.
86.
EltheniRGiakoumidakisKBrokalakiHet al. Predictors of prolonged stay in the intensive care unit following cardiac surgery. ISRN Nurs2012; 2012: 691561.
87.
HassanMWindsorJSalernoTet al. Use of pledgeted sutures in mitral annuloplasty. Innovations2014; 9: 148–149.
88.
Moh’dAFAl-OdwanHTAltarabshehS, et al. Predictors of aortic clamp time duration and intensive care unit length of stay in elective adult cardiac surgery. Egypt Heart J2021; 73: 92.
89.
StoppeCNeyJLomivorotovVV, et al. Prediction of prolonged ICU stay in cardiac surgery patients as a useful method to identify nutrition risk in cardiac surgery patients: a post hoc analysis of a prospective observational study. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr2019; 43: 768–779.
90.
NissinenJBiancariFWistbackaJO, et al. Safe time limits of aortic cross-clamping and cardiopulmonary bypass in adult cardiac surgery. Perfusion2009; 24: 297–305.
91.
DiegelerAWaltherTMetzS, et al. Comparison of MIDCAP versus conventional CABG surgery regarding pain and quality of life. Heart Surg Forum1999; 2: 290–296.
92.
SalmasiMYHarkyAChowdhuryMF, et al. Should the mitral valve be repaired for moderate ischemic mitral regurgitation at the time of revascularization surgery?J Card Surg 2018; 33: 374–384.
93.
De SantoLSMoscarielloC and
ZebeleC. Implications of obesity in cardiac surgery: pattern of referral, physiopathology, complications, prognosis. J Thorac Dis2018; 10: 4532–4539.
94.
XieXBDaiXFQiuZH, et al. Do obese patients benefit from isolated aortic valve replacement through a partial upper sternotomy?J Cardiothorac Surg2022; 17: 179.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
