Minimal access aortic valve replacement: is it worth it?

Abstract

Controversy surrounds the use of minimal access aortic valve replacement (AVR). This meta-analytical study quantified the effects of minimal access AVR on morbidity and mortality compared with conventional AVR and evaluated study heterogeneity and robustness of the findings using sensitivity analysis. Overall, meta-analysis suggested marginal benefits in perioperative mortality (4,667 patients; odds ratio, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-1.00; p = 0.05), intensive care unit stay, total hospital stay, and ventilation time in the minimal access AVR group, although cross-clamp, cardiopulmonary bypass, and total operation times were longer. Study heterogeneity and apparent benefits in perioperative mortality were related to study quality, although results for intensive care unit and hospital stay were maintained according to the sensitivity analysis. This suggests that minimal access AVR can be offered on the basis of patient choice and cosmesis rather than evident clinical benefit.