Newcastle Clinical Trials Unit, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear, UK.
Wolfson Research Institute for Health and Wellbeing, Durham University, Stockton-on-Tees, Durham, UK.
BMJ Open. 2021 Jan 29;11(1):e041398. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-041398.
To compare clinical and health economic outcomes after manubrium-limited mini-sternotomy (intervention) and conventional median sternotomy (usual care).
A single-blind, randomised controlled trial.
Single centre UK National Health Service tertiary hospital.
Adult patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR) surgery.
Intervention was manubrium-limited mini-sternotomy performed using a 5-7 cm midline incision. Usual care was median sternotomy performed using a midline incision from the sternal notch to the xiphisternum.
The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who received a red cell transfusion postoperatively and within 7 days of index surgery. Secondary outcomes included proportion of patients receiving a non-red cell blood component transfusion and number of units transfused within 7 days and during index hospital stay, quality of life and cost-effectiveness analyses.
270 patients were randomised, received surgery and contributed to the intention to treat analysis. No difference between mini and conventional sternotomy in red-cell transfusion within 7 days was found; 23/135 patients in each arm received a transfusion, OR 1.0 (95% CI 0.5 to 2.0) and risk difference 0.0 (95% CI -0.1 to 0.1). Mini-sternotomy reduced chest drain losses (mean 181.6 mL (SD 138.7) vs conventional, mean 306·9 mL (SD 348.6)); this did not reduce red-cell transfusions. Mean valve size and postoperative valve function were comparable between mini-sternotomy and conventional groups; 23 mm vs 24 mm and 6/134 moderate or severe aortic regurgitation vs 3/130, respectively. Mini-sternotomy resulted in longer bypass (82.7 min (SD 23.5) vs 59.6 min (SD 15.1)) and cross-clamp times (64.1 min (SD 17.1) vs 46·3 min (SD 10.7)). Conventional sternotomy was more cost-effective with only a 5.8% probability of mini-sternotomy being cost-effective at a willingness to pay of £20 000/QALY (Quality Adjusted Life Years).
AVR via mini-sternotomy did not reduce red blood cell transfusion within 7 days following surgery when compared with conventional sternotomy.
ISRCTN29567910; Results.
比较胸骨柄限制小切口(干预组)与传统正中胸骨切开术(常规护理)的临床和健康经济学结局。
单盲、随机对照试验。
英国国家卫生服务体系的一家单一中心三级医院。
接受主动脉瓣置换(AVR)手术的成年患者。
干预措施是通过 5-7 厘米的中线切口进行胸骨柄限制小切口。常规护理是通过从中切迹到剑突的中线切口进行正中胸骨切开术。
主要结局是术后 7 天内和指数手术内接受红细胞输血的患者比例。次要结局包括接受非红细胞血液成分输血的患者比例以及 7 天内和指数住院期间输注的单位数、生活质量和成本效益分析。
270 名患者随机分组,接受手术并参与意向治疗分析。小切口与传统胸骨切开术在术后 7 天内的红细胞输血无差异;每组各有 23/135 名患者接受输血,OR 1.0(95%CI 0.5 至 2.0),风险差异 0.0(95%CI -0.1 至 0.1)。小切口减少了胸腔引流损失(均值 181.6 mL(SD 138.7)比常规,均值 306.9 mL(SD 348.6));这并没有减少红细胞输血。小切口组和常规组的瓣膜大小和术后瓣膜功能相当;分别为 23 毫米和 24 毫米,6/134 例中度或重度主动脉瓣反流和 3/130 例。小切口的体外循环时间(82.7 分钟(SD 23.5)比 59.6 分钟(SD 15.1))和主动脉阻断时间(64.1 分钟(SD 17.1)比 46·3 分钟(SD 10.7))更长。传统胸骨切开术更具成本效益,小切口术仅以 5.8%的概率在愿意支付 20000 英镑/QALY(质量调整生命年)的情况下具有成本效益。
与传统胸骨切开术相比,AVR 通过小切口并不能减少术后 7 天内的红细胞输血。
ISRCTN29567910;结果。