Minimally Invasive vs Conventional Aortic Valve Replacement With Rapid-Deployment Bioprostheses

Background: The aim of this multicenter retrospective study was to compare early and midterm clinical and hemodynamic results of aortic valve replacement with rapid-deployment bioprostheses performed through conventional full-sternotomy vs mini-sternotomy. Methods: Data from the Italian multicenter registry of aortic valve replacement with rapid-deployment bioprostheses (INTU-ITA registry) were analyzed. Patients were divided into 2 groups: full sternotomy (FS) and ministernotomy (MS). Primary endpoint was the comparison of early and midterm mortality. Secondary endpoints were: comparison of intraoperative variables, complications, and hemodynamic performance. A propensity score weighting approach was used for data analysis. Results: A total of 1057 patients were analyzed: 435 (41.2%) and 622 (58.8%) in group FS and MS, respectively. Thirty-day mortality was 1.6% and 0.6% in FS and MS groups, respectively (P =.074). cardiopulmonary bypass time was 78.5 minutes and 83 minutes in FS and MS groups, respectively (P =.414). In the overall cohort, the incidence of intraoperative complications and of device success was 3.8% (40 patients) and 95.9% (1014 patients), respectively, with no significant differences between groups. Survival at 1, 3, and 5 years was 94.1%, 98.1%, 88.5% and 91.8%, 85.2%, and 84.8% in FS and MS groups, respectively (P =.412). The 2 groups showed similar postoperative gradients (median mean gradient, FS: 10.0 mm Hg, MS: 11.0 mm Hg; P =.170) and also similar incidence of patient–prosthesis mismatch (FS: 7%, MS: 6.4%, P =.647). Conclusions: According to our data, rapid-deployment bioprostheses allow the performance of minimally invasive aortic valve replacement with similar surgical times and similar clinical and hemodynamic outcomes to conventional surgery and should be considered the first choice in these procedures.