Shehada Sharaf-Eldin, Elhmidi Yacine, Mourad Fanar, Wendt Daniel, El Gabry Mohamed, Benedik Jaroslav, Thielmann Matthias, Jakob Heinz
Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, West-German Heart and Vascular Center Essen, University Duisburg-Essen, Germany.
Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, German Heart Center Munich, Technical University Munich, Germany.
Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2017 Oct 1;25(4):624-632. doi: 10.1093/icvts/ivx212.
Conventional aortic valve replacement (CAVR) via a full sternotomy is the standard surgical approach for aortic valve replacement. Minimal access aortic valve replacement (MAAVR) is commonly performed via a partial sternotomy and a right minithoracotomy. Such procedures aim not only to reduce the invasiveness but to offer the same quality, safety and results of the conventional approach. Our goal was to compare both procedures by performing a meta-analysis of reports with risk adjustment that performed a propensity-matched analysis. Relevant articles were searched for in Medline, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Scopus database based on predefined criteria and end-points. The early and late outcomes and complications were compared in the selected studies. A total of 4558 patients from 9 studies were enrolled; 2279 (50%) underwent CAVR and 2279 (50%) underwent MAAVR. There was a significantly lower rate of postoperative low output syndrome (1.4% vs 2.3%, P = 0.05) and atrial fibrillation (11.7% vs 15.9%, P = 0.01) in the MAAVR than in the CAVR group, respectively. In contrast, aortic cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times were significantly longer in the MAAVR group (P < 0.05). Finally, the incidence of early deaths (1.5% vs 2.2%, P = 0.14), stroke (1.4% vs 2%, P = 0.20), myocardial infarction (0.4% vs 0.5%, P = 0.65), renal injury (4.5% vs 6%, P = 0.71), respiratory complications (9% vs 10.1%, P = 0.45), re-exploration for bleeding (4.9% vs 4.1%, P = 0.27) and pacemaker implantation (3.3% vs 4.1%, P = 0.31) was similar in both groups, respectively. In summary, even though MAAVR procedure, either through partial sternotomy or right minithoracotomy, provides patient satisfaction due to the smaller incision and better cosmetics, MAAVR is as safe as the CAVR procedure. Although MAAVR takes slightly longer, it was not associated with greater cardiopulmonary bypass-related adverse effects. Interestingly, MAAVR shows a lower incidence of low cardiac output syndrome and atrial fibrillation.
通过全胸骨切开术进行的传统主动脉瓣置换术(CAVR)是主动脉瓣置换的标准手术方法。微创主动脉瓣置换术(MAAVR)通常通过部分胸骨切开术和右胸小切口进行。此类手术不仅旨在降低侵入性,还旨在提供与传统方法相同的质量、安全性和效果。我们的目标是通过对进行倾向匹配分析的风险调整报告进行荟萃分析来比较这两种手术。根据预定义的标准和终点,在Medline、Cochrane系统评价数据库和Scopus数据库中检索相关文章。在选定的研究中比较早期和晚期结果及并发症。共有来自9项研究的4558例患者入组;2279例(50%)接受了CAVR,2279例(50%)接受了MAAVR。MAAVR组术后低心排综合征发生率(1.4%对2.3%,P = 0.05)和心房颤动发生率(11.7%对15.9%,P = 0.01)分别显著低于CAVR组。相比之下,MAAVR组的主动脉阻断和体外循环时间显著更长(P < 0.05)。最后,两组早期死亡发生率(1.5%对2.2%,P = 0.14)、卒中发生率(1.4%对2%,P = 0.20)、心肌梗死发生率(0.4%对0.5%,P = 0.65)、肾损伤发生率(4.5%对6%,P = 0.71)、呼吸并发症发生率(9%对10.1%,P = 0.45)、再次开胸止血发生率(4.9%对4.1%,P = 0.27)和起搏器植入率(3.3%对4.1%,P = 0.31)相似。总之,尽管MAAVR手术,无论是通过部分胸骨切开术还是右胸小切口,由于切口较小和美容效果较好而使患者满意度较高,但MAAVR与CAVR手术一样安全。虽然MAAVR耗时略长,但与更大的体外循环相关不良反应无关。有趣的是,MAAVR显示低心排综合征和心房颤动的发生率较低。