Current era minimally invasive aortic valve replacement

Techniques and practice

S. Chris Malaisrie, Glenn R. Barnhart, R. Saeid Farivar, John Mehall, Brian Hummel, Evelio Rodriguez, Mark Anderson, Clifton Lewis, Clark Hargrove, Gorav Ailawadi, Scott Goldman, Junaid Khan, Michael Moront, Eugene Grossi, Eric E. Roselli, Arvind Agnihotri, Michael J. Mack, J. Michael Smith, Vinod H. Thourani, Francis G. Duhay & 2 others Mark T. Kocis, William H. Ryan

    Research output: Contribution to journalEditorial

    56 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    Background: Since the first aortic valve replacement through a right thoracotomy was reported in 1993, upper hemisternotomy and right anterior thoracotomy have become the predominant approaches for minimally invasive aortic valve replacement. Clinical studies have documented equivalent operative mortality, less bleeding, and reduced intensive care/hospital stay compared with conventional sternotomy despite longer procedure times. However, comparative trials face challenges due to patient preference, surgeon bias, and the lack of a standardized minimally invasive surgical approach. Methods: Twenty cardiothoracic surgeons from 19 institutions across the United States, with a combined experience of nearly 5000 minimally invasive aortic valve replacement operations, formed a working group to develop a basis for a standardized approach to patient evaluation, operative technique, and postoperative care. In addition, a stepwise learning program for surgeons was outlined. Results: Improved cosmesis, less pain and narcotic use, and faster recovery have been reported and generally accepted by patients and by surgeons performing minimally invasive aortic valve replacement. These benefits are more likely to be verified with standardization of the procedure itself, which will greatly facilitate the design and implementation of future clinical studies. Conclusions: Surgeons interested in learning and performing minimally invasive aortic valve replacement must have expertise in conventional aortic valve replacement at centers with adequate case volumes. A team approach that coordinates efforts of the surgeon, anesthesiologist, perfusionist, and nurses is required to achieve the best clinical outcomes. By first developing fundamental minimally invasive skills using specialized cannulation techniques, neck lines, and long-shafted instruments in the setting of conventional full sternotomy, the safest operative environment is afforded to patients.

    Original languageEnglish (US)
    Pages (from-to)6-14
    Number of pages9
    JournalJournal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
    Volume147
    Issue number1
    DOIs
    StatePublished - Jan 1 2014

    Fingerprint

    Aortic Valve
    Sternotomy
    Thoracotomy
    Learning
    Patient Preference
    Postoperative Care
    Narcotics
    Critical Care
    Catheterization
    Surgeons
    Length of Stay
    Neck
    Nurses
    Hemorrhage
    Pain
    Mortality

    All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

    • Surgery
    • Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine
    • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

    Cite this

    Malaisrie, S. C., Barnhart, G. R., Farivar, R. S., Mehall, J., Hummel, B., Rodriguez, E., ... Ryan, W. H. (2014). Current era minimally invasive aortic valve replacement: Techniques and practice. Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, 147(1), 6-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2013.08.086

    Current era minimally invasive aortic valve replacement : Techniques and practice. / Malaisrie, S. Chris; Barnhart, Glenn R.; Farivar, R. Saeid; Mehall, John; Hummel, Brian; Rodriguez, Evelio; Anderson, Mark; Lewis, Clifton; Hargrove, Clark; Ailawadi, Gorav; Goldman, Scott; Khan, Junaid; Moront, Michael; Grossi, Eugene; Roselli, Eric E.; Agnihotri, Arvind; Mack, Michael J.; Smith, J. Michael; Thourani, Vinod H.; Duhay, Francis G.; Kocis, Mark T.; Ryan, William H.

    In: Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Vol. 147, No. 1, 01.01.2014, p. 6-14.

    Research output: Contribution to journalEditorial

    Malaisrie, SC, Barnhart, GR, Farivar, RS, Mehall, J, Hummel, B, Rodriguez, E, Anderson, M, Lewis, C, Hargrove, C, Ailawadi, G, Goldman, S, Khan, J, Moront, M, Grossi, E, Roselli, EE, Agnihotri, A, Mack, MJ, Smith, JM, Thourani, VH, Duhay, FG, Kocis, MT & Ryan, WH 2014, 'Current era minimally invasive aortic valve replacement: Techniques and practice', Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, vol. 147, no. 1, pp. 6-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2013.08.086
    Malaisrie, S. Chris ; Barnhart, Glenn R. ; Farivar, R. Saeid ; Mehall, John ; Hummel, Brian ; Rodriguez, Evelio ; Anderson, Mark ; Lewis, Clifton ; Hargrove, Clark ; Ailawadi, Gorav ; Goldman, Scott ; Khan, Junaid ; Moront, Michael ; Grossi, Eugene ; Roselli, Eric E. ; Agnihotri, Arvind ; Mack, Michael J. ; Smith, J. Michael ; Thourani, Vinod H. ; Duhay, Francis G. ; Kocis, Mark T. ; Ryan, William H. / Current era minimally invasive aortic valve replacement : Techniques and practice. In: Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. 2014 ; Vol. 147, No. 1. pp. 6-14.
    @article{bcc97459414646938e04b62e498a6439,
    title = "Current era minimally invasive aortic valve replacement: Techniques and practice",
    abstract = "Background: Since the first aortic valve replacement through a right thoracotomy was reported in 1993, upper hemisternotomy and right anterior thoracotomy have become the predominant approaches for minimally invasive aortic valve replacement. Clinical studies have documented equivalent operative mortality, less bleeding, and reduced intensive care/hospital stay compared with conventional sternotomy despite longer procedure times. However, comparative trials face challenges due to patient preference, surgeon bias, and the lack of a standardized minimally invasive surgical approach. Methods: Twenty cardiothoracic surgeons from 19 institutions across the United States, with a combined experience of nearly 5000 minimally invasive aortic valve replacement operations, formed a working group to develop a basis for a standardized approach to patient evaluation, operative technique, and postoperative care. In addition, a stepwise learning program for surgeons was outlined. Results: Improved cosmesis, less pain and narcotic use, and faster recovery have been reported and generally accepted by patients and by surgeons performing minimally invasive aortic valve replacement. These benefits are more likely to be verified with standardization of the procedure itself, which will greatly facilitate the design and implementation of future clinical studies. Conclusions: Surgeons interested in learning and performing minimally invasive aortic valve replacement must have expertise in conventional aortic valve replacement at centers with adequate case volumes. A team approach that coordinates efforts of the surgeon, anesthesiologist, perfusionist, and nurses is required to achieve the best clinical outcomes. By first developing fundamental minimally invasive skills using specialized cannulation techniques, neck lines, and long-shafted instruments in the setting of conventional full sternotomy, the safest operative environment is afforded to patients.",
    author = "Malaisrie, {S. Chris} and Barnhart, {Glenn R.} and Farivar, {R. Saeid} and John Mehall and Brian Hummel and Evelio Rodriguez and Mark Anderson and Clifton Lewis and Clark Hargrove and Gorav Ailawadi and Scott Goldman and Junaid Khan and Michael Moront and Eugene Grossi and Roselli, {Eric E.} and Arvind Agnihotri and Mack, {Michael J.} and Smith, {J. Michael} and Thourani, {Vinod H.} and Duhay, {Francis G.} and Kocis, {Mark T.} and Ryan, {William H.}",
    year = "2014",
    month = "1",
    day = "1",
    doi = "10.1016/j.jtcvs.2013.08.086",
    language = "English (US)",
    volume = "147",
    pages = "6--14",
    journal = "Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery",
    issn = "0022-5223",
    publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
    number = "1",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Current era minimally invasive aortic valve replacement

    T2 - Techniques and practice

    AU - Malaisrie, S. Chris

    AU - Barnhart, Glenn R.

    AU - Farivar, R. Saeid

    AU - Mehall, John

    AU - Hummel, Brian

    AU - Rodriguez, Evelio

    AU - Anderson, Mark

    AU - Lewis, Clifton

    AU - Hargrove, Clark

    AU - Ailawadi, Gorav

    AU - Goldman, Scott

    AU - Khan, Junaid

    AU - Moront, Michael

    AU - Grossi, Eugene

    AU - Roselli, Eric E.

    AU - Agnihotri, Arvind

    AU - Mack, Michael J.

    AU - Smith, J. Michael

    AU - Thourani, Vinod H.

    AU - Duhay, Francis G.

    AU - Kocis, Mark T.

    AU - Ryan, William H.

    PY - 2014/1/1

    Y1 - 2014/1/1

    N2 - Background: Since the first aortic valve replacement through a right thoracotomy was reported in 1993, upper hemisternotomy and right anterior thoracotomy have become the predominant approaches for minimally invasive aortic valve replacement. Clinical studies have documented equivalent operative mortality, less bleeding, and reduced intensive care/hospital stay compared with conventional sternotomy despite longer procedure times. However, comparative trials face challenges due to patient preference, surgeon bias, and the lack of a standardized minimally invasive surgical approach. Methods: Twenty cardiothoracic surgeons from 19 institutions across the United States, with a combined experience of nearly 5000 minimally invasive aortic valve replacement operations, formed a working group to develop a basis for a standardized approach to patient evaluation, operative technique, and postoperative care. In addition, a stepwise learning program for surgeons was outlined. Results: Improved cosmesis, less pain and narcotic use, and faster recovery have been reported and generally accepted by patients and by surgeons performing minimally invasive aortic valve replacement. These benefits are more likely to be verified with standardization of the procedure itself, which will greatly facilitate the design and implementation of future clinical studies. Conclusions: Surgeons interested in learning and performing minimally invasive aortic valve replacement must have expertise in conventional aortic valve replacement at centers with adequate case volumes. A team approach that coordinates efforts of the surgeon, anesthesiologist, perfusionist, and nurses is required to achieve the best clinical outcomes. By first developing fundamental minimally invasive skills using specialized cannulation techniques, neck lines, and long-shafted instruments in the setting of conventional full sternotomy, the safest operative environment is afforded to patients.

    AB - Background: Since the first aortic valve replacement through a right thoracotomy was reported in 1993, upper hemisternotomy and right anterior thoracotomy have become the predominant approaches for minimally invasive aortic valve replacement. Clinical studies have documented equivalent operative mortality, less bleeding, and reduced intensive care/hospital stay compared with conventional sternotomy despite longer procedure times. However, comparative trials face challenges due to patient preference, surgeon bias, and the lack of a standardized minimally invasive surgical approach. Methods: Twenty cardiothoracic surgeons from 19 institutions across the United States, with a combined experience of nearly 5000 minimally invasive aortic valve replacement operations, formed a working group to develop a basis for a standardized approach to patient evaluation, operative technique, and postoperative care. In addition, a stepwise learning program for surgeons was outlined. Results: Improved cosmesis, less pain and narcotic use, and faster recovery have been reported and generally accepted by patients and by surgeons performing minimally invasive aortic valve replacement. These benefits are more likely to be verified with standardization of the procedure itself, which will greatly facilitate the design and implementation of future clinical studies. Conclusions: Surgeons interested in learning and performing minimally invasive aortic valve replacement must have expertise in conventional aortic valve replacement at centers with adequate case volumes. A team approach that coordinates efforts of the surgeon, anesthesiologist, perfusionist, and nurses is required to achieve the best clinical outcomes. By first developing fundamental minimally invasive skills using specialized cannulation techniques, neck lines, and long-shafted instruments in the setting of conventional full sternotomy, the safest operative environment is afforded to patients.

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84890564563&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84890564563&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    U2 - 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2013.08.086

    DO - 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2013.08.086

    M3 - Editorial

    VL - 147

    SP - 6

    EP - 14

    JO - Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery

    JF - Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery

    SN - 0022-5223

    IS - 1

    ER -