Minimally Invasive Approaches to Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: A Meta-Analysis

Background: Limited data exist studying the outcomes of the 2 minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (AVR) strategies—mini-sternotomy (AVR-st) and right anterior thoracotomy (AVR-th). We conducted an indirect meta-analysis to compare the outcomes of these minimally invasive approaches with each other and with conventional AVR (cAVR). Methods: We Searched Medline, PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science in December 2017 for studies comparing AVR-st, AVR-th, and cAVR. Clinical outcomes were compared between cohorts with inverse weighted random effects modeling. Endpoints studied included hospital mortality, stroke, atrial fibrillation, cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time, and length of stay. Results: A total of 19 studies (>10,000 pooled patients) met the inclusion criteria. Mortality (p = 0.06) and stroke (p = 0.15) were comparable between minimally invasive and conventional AVR. CPB times were longer with AVR-th versus cAVR (12.4 minutes [range, 5 to 19]; p < 0.01). In the AVR-th cohort, CPB duration was weakly inversely related to study size (p = 0.06). Atrial fibrillation was much less after AVR-th (odds ratio 0.47 [0.35 to 0.63]; p < 0.001). Hospital stay was significantly lower after minimally invasive surgery (0.8 [0.4 to 1.3] days; p < 0.01). AVR-th patients were dismissed 2.1 (1.6 to 2.7) days earlier than cAVR patients. Conclusions: Minimally invasive approaches to AVR yield excellent outcomes in high-volume centers. They reduce hospital stay and incidence of postoperative atrial fibrillation, and therefore should be considered in patients undergoing AVR. The operative approach should be selected according to surgeon's technical expertise and what is best for specific patient profile, however.