Aortic Valve Replacement: Treatment by Sternotomy versus Minimally Invasive Approach

Abstract Objective: To compare the results of aortic valve replacement with access by sternotomy or minimally invasive approach. Methods: Retrospective analysis of medical records of 37 patients undergoing aortic valve replacement by sternotomy or minimally invasive approach, with emphasis on the...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Renata Tosoni Rodrigues Ferreira, Roberto Rocha e Silva, Evaldo Marchi
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Sociedade Brasileira de Cirurgia Cardiovascular
Series:Brazilian Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0102-76382016000600422&lng=en&tlng=en
id doaj-7b02717b8ab446ae967eeca35e31eb0b
record_format Article
spelling doaj-7b02717b8ab446ae967eeca35e31eb0b2020-11-24T21:18:18ZengSociedade Brasileira de Cirurgia CardiovascularBrazilian Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery1678-974131642242710.5935/1678-9741.20160085S0102-76382016000600422Aortic Valve Replacement: Treatment by Sternotomy versus Minimally Invasive ApproachRenata Tosoni Rodrigues FerreiraRoberto Rocha e SilvaEvaldo MarchiAbstract Objective: To compare the results of aortic valve replacement with access by sternotomy or minimally invasive approach. Methods: Retrospective analysis of medical records of 37 patients undergoing aortic valve replacement by sternotomy or minimally invasive approach, with emphasis on the comparison of time of cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic clamping, volume of surgical bleeding, time of mechanical ventilation, need for blood transfusion, incidence of atrial fibrillation, length of stay in intensive care unit, time of hospital discharge, short-term mortality and presence of surgical wound infection. Results: Sternotomy was used in 22 patients and minimally invasive surgery in 15 patients. The minimally invasive approach had significantly higher time values of cardiopulmonary bypass (114.3±23.9 versus 86.7±19.8min.; P=0.003), aortic clamping (87.4±19.2 versus 61.4±12.9 min.; P<0.001) and mechanical ventilation (287.3±138.9 versus 153.9±118.6 min.; P=0.003). No difference was found in outcomes surgical bleeding volume, need for blood transfusion, incidence of atrial fibrillation, length of stay in intensive care unit and time of hospital discharge. No cases of short-term mortality or surgical wound infection were documented. Conclusion: The less invasive approach presented with longer times of cardiopulmonary bypass, aortic clamping and mechanical ventilation than sternotomy, however without prejudice to the length of stay in intensive care unit, time of hospital discharge and morbidity.http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0102-76382016000600422&lng=en&tlng=enAortic Valve/SurgeryAortic Valve StenosisCardiovascular Surgical ProceduresSternotomyCardiopulmonary BypassHeart Valve Prosthesis Implantation
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Renata Tosoni Rodrigues Ferreira
Roberto Rocha e Silva
Evaldo Marchi
spellingShingle Renata Tosoni Rodrigues Ferreira
Roberto Rocha e Silva
Evaldo Marchi
Aortic Valve Replacement: Treatment by Sternotomy versus Minimally Invasive Approach
Brazilian Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery
Aortic Valve/Surgery
Aortic Valve Stenosis
Cardiovascular Surgical Procedures
Sternotomy
Cardiopulmonary Bypass
Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation
author_facet Renata Tosoni Rodrigues Ferreira
Roberto Rocha e Silva
Evaldo Marchi
author_sort Renata Tosoni Rodrigues Ferreira
title Aortic Valve Replacement: Treatment by Sternotomy versus Minimally Invasive Approach
title_short Aortic Valve Replacement: Treatment by Sternotomy versus Minimally Invasive Approach
title_full Aortic Valve Replacement: Treatment by Sternotomy versus Minimally Invasive Approach
title_fullStr Aortic Valve Replacement: Treatment by Sternotomy versus Minimally Invasive Approach
title_full_unstemmed Aortic Valve Replacement: Treatment by Sternotomy versus Minimally Invasive Approach
title_sort aortic valve replacement: treatment by sternotomy versus minimally invasive approach
publisher Sociedade Brasileira de Cirurgia Cardiovascular
series Brazilian Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery
issn 1678-9741
description Abstract Objective: To compare the results of aortic valve replacement with access by sternotomy or minimally invasive approach. Methods: Retrospective analysis of medical records of 37 patients undergoing aortic valve replacement by sternotomy or minimally invasive approach, with emphasis on the comparison of time of cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic clamping, volume of surgical bleeding, time of mechanical ventilation, need for blood transfusion, incidence of atrial fibrillation, length of stay in intensive care unit, time of hospital discharge, short-term mortality and presence of surgical wound infection. Results: Sternotomy was used in 22 patients and minimally invasive surgery in 15 patients. The minimally invasive approach had significantly higher time values of cardiopulmonary bypass (114.3±23.9 versus 86.7±19.8min.; P=0.003), aortic clamping (87.4±19.2 versus 61.4±12.9 min.; P<0.001) and mechanical ventilation (287.3±138.9 versus 153.9±118.6 min.; P=0.003). No difference was found in outcomes surgical bleeding volume, need for blood transfusion, incidence of atrial fibrillation, length of stay in intensive care unit and time of hospital discharge. No cases of short-term mortality or surgical wound infection were documented. Conclusion: The less invasive approach presented with longer times of cardiopulmonary bypass, aortic clamping and mechanical ventilation than sternotomy, however without prejudice to the length of stay in intensive care unit, time of hospital discharge and morbidity.
topic Aortic Valve/Surgery
Aortic Valve Stenosis
Cardiovascular Surgical Procedures
Sternotomy
Cardiopulmonary Bypass
Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation
url http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0102-76382016000600422&lng=en&tlng=en
work_keys_str_mv AT renatatosonirodriguesferreira aorticvalvereplacementtreatmentbysternotomyversusminimallyinvasiveapproach
AT robertorochaesilva aorticvalvereplacementtreatmentbysternotomyversusminimallyinvasiveapproach
AT evaldomarchi aorticvalvereplacementtreatmentbysternotomyversusminimallyinvasiveapproach
_version_ 1726009802799185920