Minimally invasive versus full sternotomy aortic valve replacement in low-risk patients: Which will stand against...

Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement using upper-hemisternotomy has been associated with improved results compared to full sternotomy aortic valve replacement. Given the likely expansion of transcatheter aortic valve replacement to low-risk patients, we examine contemporary outcomes after full sternotomy and minimally invasive aortic valve replacement in low-risk patients using our 15-year experience.

Two thousand ninety-five low-risk patients (Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score <4) underwent elective isolated aortic valve replacement, including 1,029 (49%) minimally invasive and 1,066 (51%) full sternotomy, from 2002 to 2015.

Compared to minimally invasive aortic valve replacement patients, full sternotomy aortic valve replacement patients had a greater burden of comorbidities, including diabetes, stroke, congestive heart failure, and predicted risk of mortality (all P ≤ .05). Operative mortality, stroke, and reoperation rates for bleeding were similar. There was a clinical trend toward shorter median intensive care unit stay and significantly shorter hospital length of stay among minimally invasive aortic valve replacement patients. Adjusted survival analysis identified age, chronic kidney disease, prior sternotomy, and congestive heart failure as predictors of decreased survival (all P ≤ .05), while type of intervention approach was nonsignificantly different.

In low-risk patients, minimally invasive aortic valve replacement results in similar mortality, stroke, reoperation rates for bleeding, and midterm survival (after adjusting for confounders), but shorter hospital length of stay and a trend (P = .075) toward shorter intensive care unit stay, compared to full sternotomy aortic valve replacement. Therefore, minimally invasive aortic valve replacement should stand as a benchmark against transcatheter aortic valve replacement in these patients.