• Tom C Nguyen, Vinod H Thourani, Justin Q Pham, Yelin Zhao, Matthew D Terwelp, Prakash Balan, Daniel Ocazionez, Catalin Loghin, Richard W Smalling, Anthony L Estrera, and Joseph Lamelas.
• From the *Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Memorial Hermann Hospital, University of Texas Medical School at Houston, Heart and Vascular Institute, Houston, TX USA; †Structural Heart and Valve Center, Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA USA; ‡Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Memorial Hermann Hospital, University of Texas Medical School at Houston, Heart and Vascular Institute, Houston, TX USA; §Department Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging, University of Texas Medical School at Houston, Memorial Hermann Hospital, Houston, TX USA; and ∥Department of Cardiac Surgery, Mount Sinai Medical Center, Miami Beach, FL USA.
• Innovations (Phila). 2017 Jan 1; 12 (1): 33-40.

ObjectiveLow ejection fraction (EF < 40%) portends adverse outcomes in patients undergoing valvular heart surgery. The role of traditional median sternotomy aortic valve replacement (SAVR) compared with minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MIAVR) in this cohort remains incompletely understood.MethodsA multi-institutional retrospective review of 1503 patients who underwent SAVR (n = 815) and MIAVR via right anterior thoracotomy (n = 688) from 2011 to 2014 was performed. Patients were stratified into two groups: EF of less than 40% and EF of 40% or more. In each EF group, SAVR and MIAVR patients were propensity matched by age, sex, body mass index, race, diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, dialysis, cerebrovascular disease, cardiovascular disease, cerebrovascular accident, peripheral vascular disease, last creatinine level, EF, previous MI and cardiogenic shock, and the Society for Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score.ResultsAmong patients with an EF of 40% or more (377 pairs), patients who underwent MIAVR compared with SAVR had decreased intensive care unit hours (56.8% vs 84.6%, P < 0.001), postoperative length of stay (7.1 vs 7.9 days, P = 0.04), incidence of atrial fibrillation (18.8% vs 38.7%, P < 0.001), bleeding (0.8% vs 3.2%, P = 0.04), and a trend toward decreased 30-day mortality (0.3% vs 1.3%, P = 0.22). The STS scores were largely equivalent in patients undergoing MIAVR compared with SAVR (2.4% vs 2.6%, P = 0.09). In patients with an EF of less than 40% (35 pairs), there was no difference in intensive care unit hours (69% vs 72.6%, P = 0.80), postoperative length of stay (10.3 vs 7.2 days, P = 0.13), 30-day mortality (3.8% vs 0.8%, P = 0.50), or the STS score (3.3% vs 3.2%, P = 0.68).ConclusionsMinimally invasive aortic valve replacement in patients with preserved EF was associated with improved short-term outcomes compared with SAVR. In patients with left ventricular dysfunction, short-term outcomes between MIAVR and SAVR are largely equivalent.

23 keywords...

hide…