A 16-year experience in minimally invasive aortic valve replacement: Context for the changing management of aortic valve disease

Innovations: Technology and Techniques in Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery

Volumn 9, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 104-110

  Gosev, Igor ^a   Kaneko, Tsuyoshi ^a   McGurk, Siobhan ^a   McClure, Scott R ^a   Maloney, Ann ^a   Cohn, Lawrence H ^a  

^a HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

Aortic valve replacement; Mini sternotomy; Minimally invasive surgery

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; AORTA VALVE DISEASE; AORTA VALVE REPLACEMENT; ARTICLE; BLEEDING; CARDIOVASCULAR MORTALITY; CEREBROVASCULAR ACCIDENT; ERYTHROCYTE; FEMALE; HEART ATRIUM FIBRILLATION; HEMISTERNOTOMY; HUMAN; IMPLANTED HEART PACEMAKER; LENGTH OF STAY; LONG TERM SURVIVAL; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MINIMALLY INVASIVE CARDIAC SURGERY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REOPERATION; STERNOTOMY; SURGICAL MORTALITY; VERY ELDERLY; YOUNG ADULT; AORTA VALVE; DISEASE MANAGEMENT; FORECASTING; HEART DEFECTS, CONGENITAL; HEART VALVE DISEASES; HEART VALVE REPLACEMENT; INCIDENCE; MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGERY; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; PROCEDURES; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; UNITED STATES;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; AORTIC VALVE; DISEASE MANAGEMENT; FEMALE; FORECASTING; HEART DEFECTS, CONGENITAL; HEART VALVE DISEASES; HEART VALVE PROSTHESIS IMPLANTATION; HUMANS; INCIDENCE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGICAL PROCEDURES; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; STERNOTOMY; UNITED STATES; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84899913614     PISSN: 15569845     EISSN: 15590879     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/IMI.0000000000000053     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Bonow RO, Carabello BA, Chatterjee K, et al., for the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. 2008 focused update incorporated into the ACC/AHA 2006 guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to revise the 1998 guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease). Endorsed by the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008; 52:e1-e142.
2. Cosgrove DM III, Sabik JF. Minimally invasive approach for aortic valve operations. Ann Thorac Surg. 1996; 62:596-597.
3. Cohn LH, Adams DH, Couper GS, et al. Minimally invasive cardiac valve surgery improves patient satisfaction while reducing costs of cardiac valve replacement and repair. Ann Surg. 1997; 226:421-426.
4. Benetti FJ, Mariani MA, Rizzardi JL, Benetti I. Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1997; 113:806-807.
5. Gillinov AM, Banbury MK, Cosgrove DM. Hemisternotomy approach for aortic and mitral valve surgery. J Card Surg. 2000; 15:15-20.
6. Mihaljevic T, Cohn LH, Unic D, Aranki SF, Couper GS, Byrne JG. One thousand minimally invasive valve operations: early and late results. Ann Surg. 2004; 240:529-534.
7. Soltesz EG, Cohn LH. Minimally invasive valve surgery. Cardiol Rev. 2007; 15:109-115.
8. Sharony R, Grossi EA, Saunders PC, et al. Propensity score analysis of a six-year experience with minimally invasive isolated aortic valve replacement. J Heart Valve Dis. 2004; 13:887-893.
9. Liu J, Sidiropoulos A, Konertz W. Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (AVR) compared to standard AVR. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 1999; 16(suppl 2):S80-S83.
10. Bonacchi M, Prifti E, Giunti G, Frati G, Sani G. Does ministernotomy improve postoperative outcome in aortic valve operation? A prospective randomized study. Ann Thorac Surg. 2002; 73:460-465.
11. Mächler HE, Bergmann P, Anelli-Monti M, et al. Minimally invasive versus conventional aortic valve operations: a prospective study in 120 patients. Ann Thorac Surg. 1999; 67:1001-1005.
12. Kim BS, Soltesz EG, Cohn LH. Minimally invasive approaches to aortic valve surgery: Brigham experience. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2006; 18:148-153.
13. ElBardissi A, Shekar P, Couper GS, Cohn LH. Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement in octogenarian, high-risk, transcatheter aortic valve implantation candidates. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2011; 141:328-335.
14. Smith CR, Leon MB, Mack MJ, et al., for the PARTNERTrial Investigators. Transcatheter versus surgical aortic-valve replacement in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med. 2011; 364:2187-2198.
15. Kodali SK, Williams MR, Smith CR, et al., for the PARTNER Trial Investigators. Two-year outcomes after transcatheter or surgical aortic-valve replacement. N Engl J Med. 2012; 366:1686-1695.
16. Zahn R, Gerckens U, Linke A, et al., for the German Transcatheter Aortic Valve Interventions-Registry Investigators. Predictors of one-year mortality after transcatheter aortic valve implantation for severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. Am J Cardiol. 2013; 112:272-279.
17. Tabata M, Khalpey Z, Shekar PS, Cohn LH. Reoperative minimal access aortic valve surgery: minimal mediastinal dissection and minimal injury risk. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2008; 136:1564-1568.
18. Horstkotte D, Loogen F. The natural history of aortic valve stenosis. Eur Heart J. 1988; 9(suppl E):57-64.
19. Freed BH, Sugeng L, Furlong K, et al. Reasons for nonadherence to guidelines for aortic valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis and potential solutions. Am J Cardiol. 2010; 105:1339-1342.
20. Iung B, Cachier A, Baron G, et al. Decision-making in elderly patients with severe aortic stenosis: why are so many denied surgery? Eur Heart J. 2005; 26:2714-2720.
21. Byrne JG, Aranki SF, Couper GS, Adams DH, Allred EN, Cohn LH. Reoperative aortic valve replacement: partial upper hemisternotomy versus conventional full sternotomy. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1999; 118:991-997.
22. Tabata M, Umakanthan R, Khalpey Z, et al. Conversion to full sternotomy during minimal-access cardiac surgery: reasons and results during a 9.5-year experience. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2007; 134: 165-169.