Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 20, 2026

Standardized Technique of Aortic Valve Re-implantation for Valve-sparing Aortic Root Replacement
Published on: December 11, 2017
Long-term outcomes following minimal invasive versus conventional aortic valve replacement: a propensity match
Introduction:
Minimal invasive aortic valve replacement has become a routine procedure. In this study, we compared the outcomes between conventional and minimal invasive aortic valve replacement via the partial upper sternotomy that were performed in our Institution.
Methods:
The 5 year survival and postoperative outcomes of 34 patients that underwent isolated MIAVR between the years 2010-2013 were compared with the outcomes of 34 randomly selected patients that underwent conventional AVR, after propensity match analysis.
Results:
There was no difference between the two groups concerning the early and late postoperative outcomes. MIAVR patients had a longer mean cross-clamp time (p = 0.002) and longer cardiopulmonary bypass time (p = 0.0005) compared to the AVR patients. 5 year mortality and survival were 4.17 % vs 16.67 % (p = 0.20) and 95.8 % vs 83.3 % (p = 0.37) in the MIAVR and AVR groups respectively.
Conclusion:
This study showed a comparable 5 year survival and postoperative outcomes between the MIAVR and AVR groups. In our opinion, the minimal access aortic valve replacement can be performed safely with excellent long-term results in selected patients (Tab. 4, Fig. 1, Ref. 35).
Insights
Minimal invasive aortic valve replacement (MIAVR) shows comparable 5-year survival and outcomes to conventional aortic valve replacement (AVR). MIAVR is a safe option for selected patients, offering excellent long-term results.
Area of Science:
- Cardiovascular Surgery
- Minimally Invasive Procedures
Background:
- Minimal invasive aortic valve replacement (MIAVR) is increasingly routine.
- Conventional aortic valve replacement (AVR) is the standard procedure.
Purpose of the Study:
- Compare outcomes of MIAVR via partial upper sternotomy with conventional AVR.
- Evaluate 5-year survival and postoperative results.
Main Methods:
- Propensity match analysis of 34 MIAVR patients (2010-2013) vs. 34 conventional AVR patients.
- Comparison of early and late postoperative outcomes, mortality, and survival rates.
Main Results:
- No significant difference in early or late postoperative outcomes between MIAVR and AVR groups.
- MIAVR had longer cross-clamp and bypass times (p<0.002).
- 5-year survival: 95.8% for MIAVR vs. 83.3% for AVR (p=0.37).
Conclusions:
- MIAVR demonstrates comparable 5-year survival and postoperative outcomes to conventional AVR.
- MIAVR can be safely performed in selected patients with excellent long-term results.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
Aortic Regurgitation III: Medical Management
Aortic Regurgitation I: Introduction
Mitral Stenosis III: Medical Management
Mitral Valve Prolapse II: Assessment and Management
Aneurysm IV: Nursing Management

