• B Bridgewater, R S Steyn, S Ray, and T Hooper.
• Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester, UK.
• Heart. 1998 Jun 1; 79 (6): 605-7.

ObjectivesTo compare aortic valve replacement (AVR) using a minimally invasive approach through a transverse sternotomy with the established approach of median sternotomy.DesignRetrospective, case-control study.PatientsFourteen high risk patients (median age 78, Parsonnet score of 18%) who underwent AVR performed through a minimally invasive transverse sternotomy were compared with a historical group of patients matched for age, sex, and Parsonnet score who underwent AVR performed through a median sternotomy by the same surgeon.Outcome MeasuresCross clamp time, total bypass time, intensive care stay, postoperative in-hospital stay, morbidity, and mortality.ResultsThere were two deaths in the minimally invasive group and none in the control group (NS). The cross clamp and total bypass times were longer in the minimally invasive group (67 and 92 minutes v 46 and 66 minutes, p < 0.001). There was a higher incidence of re-exploration for bleeding (14% v 0%) and paravalvar leaks (21% v 0%) in the minimally invasive group but these differences were not significant. The minimally invasive group had a longer postoperative in-hospital stay (p = 0.025). The incidence of mortality or major morbidity was 43% (six of 14) in the minimally invasive group and 7% (one of 14) in the matched pairs (p = 0.013).ConclusionsAVR can be performed through a transverse sternotomy but the operation takes longer and there is an unacceptably high incidence of morbidity and mortality.

30 keywords...

hide…