Minimally Invasive Versus Conventional Aortic Valve Replacement: A Propensity-Matched Study From the UK National Data.

OBJECTIVE Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MIAVR) has been demonstrated as a safe and effective option but remains underused. We aimed to evaluate outcomes of isolated MIAVR compared with conventional aortic valve replacement (CAVR). METHODS Data from The National Institute for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research (NICOR) were analyzed at seven volunteer centers (2006-2012). Primary outcomes were in-hospital mortality and midterm survival. Secondary outcomes were postoperative length of stay as well as cumulative bypass and cross-clamp times. Propensity modeling with matched cohort analysis was used. RESULTS Of 307 consecutive MIAVR patients, 151 (49%) were performed during the last 2 years of study with a continued increase in numbers. The 307 MIAVR patients were matched on a 1:1 ratio. In the matched CAVR group, there was no statistically significant difference in in-hospital mortality [MIAVR, 4/307,(1.3%); 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.4%-3.4% vs CAVR, 6/307 (2.0%); 95% CI, 0.8%-4.3%; P = 0.752]. One-year survival rates in the MIAVR and CAVR groups were 94.4% and 94.6%, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in midterm survival (P = 0.677; hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.56-1.46). Median postoperative length of stay was lower in the MIAVR patients by 1 day (P = 0.009). The mean cumulative bypass time (94.8 vs 91.3 minutes; P = 0.333) and cross-clamp time (74.6 vs 68.4 minutes; P = 0.006) were longer in the MIAVR group; however, this was significant only in the cross-clamp time comparison. CONCLUSIONS Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement is a safe alternative to CAVR with respect to operative and 1-year mortality and is associated with a shorter postoperative stay. Further studies are required in high-risk (logistic EuroSCORE > 10) patients to define the role of MIAVR.