The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
Volume 138, Issue 5 , Pages 1067-1072, November 2009

Is transapical aortic valve implantation really less invasive than minimally invasive aortic valve replacement?

Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Hospital of the Johann Wolfgang Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Germany

Received 9 May 2008; received in revised form 7 February 2009; accepted 27 April 2009. published online 10 September 2009.

Background

Transcatheter valve implants currently draw their justification for use from reduction of perioperative risk. However, patient age and comorbidities are independent predictors of adverse outcome after aortic valve replacement, regardless of surgical approach. Therefore, it is unclear whether transapical aortic valve implantation really improves outcomes in high-risk patients.

Methods

We included a total of 51 high-risk patients with severe aortic valve stenosis. Patients were allocated to transapical aortic valve implantation (n = 21) or minimally invasive aortic valve replacement via a partial upper sternotomy (n = 30), in a nonrandomized fashion. Patient age, preoperative comorbidities, and perioperative risk, expressed as logistic EuroSCORE (38% ± 14% vs 35% ± 9%), were matched between the 2 groups.

Results

Early morbidity and mortality were comparable between groups, but transapical aortic valve implantation was associated with shorter operative time (P = .004), ventilation time (P < .001), intensive care unit stay (P < .001), and hospital stay (P < .001). Thirty-day mortality was 14% (n = 3) in the transcatheter group versus 10% (n = 3) in the surgical group. After a mean follow-up of 12 ± 4 months (100% complete), there were a total of 5 (24%) deaths in the transapical group versus 5 (17%) deaths in the open surgery group. There was 1 intraoperative death in the transapical group versus none in the surgery group. In the transapical group, there were 2 re-explorations for bleeding, 2 intraoperative conversions, 1 case of prosthesis migration, and 2 impairments of coronary arteries. The surgery group included 1 re-exploration, 1 stroke, 1 pacemaker implantation for complete atrioventricular block, and 3 cases of atrial fibrillation.

Conclusions

Current data suggest a faster postoperative recovery after transapical aortic valve implantation, with early and late morbidity and mortality comparable with those of minimally invasive aortic valve replacement via partial upper sternotomy.

CTSNet classification: 28

Abbreviations and Acronyms: AVI, aortic valve implantation, AVR, aortic valve replacement, CPB, cardiopulmonary bypass, PUS, partial upper sternotomy, PUS–AVR, minimally invasive aortic valve replacement via partial upper sternotomy, TAP–AVI, transapical aortic valve implantation (implant)

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 Read at the Eighty-eighth Annual Meeting of The American Association for Thoracic Surgery, San Diego, Calif, May 10–14, 2008.

PII: S0022-5223(09)00927-1

doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2009.04.057

The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
Volume 138, Issue 5 , Pages 1067-1072, November 2009