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

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