Results of Minimally Invasive Valve-Sparing Aortic Root Valve Surgery: Propensity Score Matching Analysis

Aim      Evaluation of efficacy and safety of minimally invasive, valve-sparing interventions on the aortic root and a comparative analysis of outcomes versus a group of patients with a complete sternotomy intervention using the method of propensity score matching (PSM).

Materials and methods From 2016 through 2019, 458 interventions on the aortic root were performed, including 160 (36.6 %) interventions with mini-sternotomy. The study included 106 patients with the valve-sparing surgery (David procedure). Two groups of 30 patients each were formed using PSMC: group 1, complete sternotomy (CS) and group 2, J-shaped mini-sternotomy (MS). Immediate and long-term outcomes were evaluated at 13.8±10.3 (1–38 months (min-max) in the MS group and 42±21 (1–61 months (min-max) in the CS group.

Results Statistically significant differences in death rate, echocardiographic indexes, absence of reoperations and complications in the postoperative period were not observed. In group 2, durations of extracorporeal circulation (p=0.04) and period of myocardial ischemia (p=0.004) were increased. The same group showed decreased intraoperative blood loss (p=0.001), postoperative drainage losses (p=0.0001), extubation time (р=0.0001), duration of stay in resuscitation and intensive care units and in the department of reconstructive recovery cardiovascular surgery (p=0,005).

Conclusion      The David procedure with mini-sternotomy is a safe and effective alternative to the traditional approach. This technique significantly reduces the time of rehabilitation and duration of patients’ stay in the hospital without significant differences in the long-term period, which suggests advantages of this method. However, despite these promising results, the retrospective nature of this study, a small sample of patients, and a short follow-up period warrant further study.

1. Bentall H, De Bono A. A technique for complete replacement of the ascending aorta. Thorax. 1968;23(4):338–9. DOI: 10.1136/thx.23.4.338

2. David TE, Feindel CM. An aortic valve-sparing operation for patients with aortic incompetence and aneurysm of the ascending aorta. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. 1992;103(4):617–22. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-5223(19)34942-6

3. Uspensky V.E., Sukhova I.V., Malev E.G., Najmushin A.V., Gordeev M.G. Improvement of the technique of aortic root replacement with aortic valve sparing: immediate and long-term results. Grekov’s Bulletin of Surgery. 2010;169(1):108–12.

4. Charchyan E.R., Breshenkov D.G., Belov Yu.V. Minimally invasive approach in thoracic aortic surgery: a single center experience. Russian Journal of Cardiology and Cardiovascular Surgery. 2019;12(6):522– 35. DOI: 10.17116/kardio201912061522

5. Charchyan E.R., Belov Yu.V., Skvortsov A.A., Slagaev G.I., Shvedov P.N. Choosing aortic valve plasty for aortic root/ascending aorta repair. Circulation Pathology and Cardiac Surgery. 2016;20(2):26–34. DOI: 10.21688/1681-3472-2016-2-26-34

6. Calafiore AM, Teodori G, Mezzetti A, Bosco G, Verna AM, Di Giammarco G et al. Intermittent antegrade warm blood cardioplegia. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery. 1995;59(2):398–402. DOI: 10.1016/0003-4975(94)00843-V

7. Kozlov B.N., Panfilov D.S., Ponomarenko I.V., Miroshnichenko A.G., Gorokhov A.S., Kuznetsov M.S. et al. The new technique of unilateral antegrade cerebral perfusion during aortic arch surgery. Russian Journal of Cardiology and Cardiovascular Surgery. 2015;8(1):30–4.

8. Shrestha M, Krueger H, Umminger J, Koigeldiyev N, Beckmann E, Haverich A et al. Minimally invasive valve sparing aortic root replacement (David procedure) is safe. Annals of Cardiothoracic Surgery. 2015;4(2):148–53. DOI: 10.3978/j.issn.2225-319X.2014.08.04

9. Boodhwani M, El Khoury G, de Kerchove L. Graft sizing for aortic valve sparing surgery. Annals of Cardiothoracic Surgery. 2013;2(1):140–3. DOI: 10.3978/j.issn.2225-319X.2013.01.13

10. Joo H-C, Chang B-C, Youn Y-N, Yoo K-J, Lee S. Clinical Experience with the Bentall Procedure: 28 Years. Yonsei Medical Journal. 2012;53(5):915–23. DOI: 10.3349/ymj.2012.53.5.915

11. David TE. Aortic valve sparing operations: outcomes at 20 years. Annals of Cardiothoracic Surgery. 2013;2(1):24–9. DOI: 10.3978/j.issn.2225-319X.2012.11.15

12. Bakir I, Casselman FP, Wellens F, Jeanmart H, De Geest R, Degrieck I et al. Minimally Invasive Versus Standard Approach Aortic Valve Replacement: A Study in 506 Patients. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery. 2006;81(5):1599–604. DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2005.12.011

13. Mihaljevic T, Cohn LH, Unic D, Aranki SF, Couper GS, Byrne JG. One Thousand Minimally Invasive Valve Operations: Early and Late Results. Annals of Surgery. 2004;240(3):529–34. DOI: 10.1097/01.sla.0000137141.55267.47

14. Monsefi N, Risteski P, Miskovic A, Zierer A, Moritz A. Propensity-matched comparison between minimally invasive and conventional sternotomy in aortic valve resuspension. European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. 2018;53(6):1258–63. DOI: 10.1093/ejcts/ezx489

15. Harky A, Al-Adhami A, Chan JSK, Wong CHM, Bashir M. Minimally Invasive Versus Conventional Aortic Root Replacement − A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Heart, Lung and Circulation. 2019;28(12):1841–51. DOI: 10.1016/j.hlc.2018.10.023

16. Leontyev S, Trommer C, Subramanian S, Lehmann S, Dmitrieva Y, Misfeld M et al. The outcome after aortic valve-sparing (David) operation in 179 patients: a single-centre experience. European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. 2012;42(2):261–7. DOI: 10.1093/ejcts/ezs011