Minimally Invasive versus Full Sternotomy SAVR in the Era of TAVR: An Institutional Review

In the era of advancing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) technology, traditional open surgery remains a valuable intervention for patients who are not TAVR candidates. We sought to compare perioperative variables and postoperative outcomes of minimally invasive and full sternotomy surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) at a single institution. A retrospective analysis of 113 patients who underwent isolated SAVR via full sternotomy or upper hemi-sternotomy between January 2015 and December 2019 at the University of Utah Hospital was performed. Preoperative comorbidities and demographic information were not different among groups, with the exception of diabetes, which was significantly more common in the full sternotomy group (p = 0.01). Median procedure length was numerically shorter in the minimally invasive group but was not significant following the Bonferroni correction (p = 0.047). Other perioperative variables were not significantly different. The two groups showed no difference in the incidence of postoperative adverse events (p = 0.879). As such, minimally invasive SAVR via hemi-sternotomy remains a safe and effective alternative to full sternotomy for patients who meet the criteria for aortic valve replacement.

Automated summary

In this study, the perioperative variables and postoperative outcomes of minimally invasive and full sternotomy surgical aortic valve replacement were compared. The results showed that there were no significant differences in preoperative comorbidities and demographic information between the two groups. The procedure length was slightly shorter in the minimally invasive group, but not significantly. There were no differences in the incidence of postoperative adverse events between the two groups.