Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 12, 2026

Standardized Technique of Aortic Valve Re-implantation for Valve-sparing Aortic Root Replacement
Published on: December 11, 2017
Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement: Comparison of long-term outcomes
Priyadharshanan Ariyaratnam1, Mahmoud Loubani2, Steven C Griffin2
1Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Castle Hill Hospital, Cottingham, UK priyadariyaratnam@yahoo.co.uk.
Insights
Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement shows comparable short-term outcomes to conventional surgery. Long-term survival is favorable, supporting its continued use by specialist surgeons.
Area of Science:
- Cardiovascular Surgery
- Thoracic Surgery
- Minimally Invasive Procedures
Background:
- Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MIAVR) is typically performed in specialized centers.
- Limited data exists on the long-term outcomes of the upper hemi-sternotomy technique for MIAVR.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the short- and long-term outcomes of upper hemi-sternotomy minimally invasive aortic valve replacement.
- To compare MIAVR outcomes with conventional aortic valve replacement (CAVR) at an institutional level.
Main Methods:
- A retrospective review of patients undergoing MIAVR or CAVR between July 1999 and December 2013.
- Propensity score matching was used to compare hospital outcomes between the two groups.
Main Results:
- 125 patients underwent MIAVR and 1446 underwent CAVR. Propensity matching revealed no significant differences in postoperative mortality or complications.
- Conventional surgery had longer bypass and crossclamp times. Long-term survival rates for MIAVR at 2, 6, and 10 years were 88%, 79%, and 66%, respectively.
- Predictors of long-term survival included age, peripheral vascular disease, and low ejection fraction.
Conclusions:
- Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement demonstrates similar hospital outcomes to conventional aortic valve replacement.
- MIAVR is associated with shorter operative times without increased complications or hospital stay.
- Favorable long-term outcomes support the continued use of MIAVR by specialist surgeons.
Background:
Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement tends to be performed in specialist centers. Little data exists with regard to long-term outcomes of the upper hemi-sternotomy technique. We sought to evaluate the short- and long-term outcomes of this procedure in our institution.
Methods:
Data were collected from our cardiac surgical database. We compared the outcomes of all patients who underwent minimally invasive aortic valve replacement with all who underwent conventional aortic valve replacement between July 1999 and December 2013. Propensity-matching analysis was performed to evaluate hospital outcomes.
Results:
There were 125 patients who underwent minimally invasive aortic valve replacement and 1446 who had conventional surgery. After propensity score matching, there were no differences in postoperative mortality or complications between the 2 groups. The only significant differences were longer bypass (62.69 ± 10.12 vs. 68.94 ± 14.79 min, p = 0.002) and crossclamp times (45.48 ± 8.08 vs. 52.30 ± 16.29 min, p < 0.001) in conventional surgery. Long-term survival after minimally invasive aortic valve replacement at 2, 6, and 10 years was 88% ± 3.0%, 79% ± 4.0%, and 66% ± 6.0%, respectively. Predictors of long-term survival were age, peripheral vascular disease, and low ejection fraction (p < 0.005).
Conclusion:
Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement has similar hospital outcomes compared to conventional aortic valve replacement. The operation is quicker and does not confer any significant increase in complications or length of hospital stay. The long-term outcomes are favorable and justify its continued use by specialist surgeons in the United Kingdom.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
Aortic Regurgitation III: Medical Management
Mitral Stenosis III: Medical Management
Aortic Regurgitation I: Introduction
Aneurysm IV: Nursing Management
Mitral Valve Prolapse II: Assessment and Management

