HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Personal Folders Download to citation manager Author home page(s): Bari Murtuza John R. Pepper Permission Requests Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Murtuza, B. Articles by Athanasiou, T. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Murtuza, B. Articles by Athanasiou, T. Related Collections Valve disease

---

Review

Minimal Access Aortic Valve Replacement: Is It Worth It?

^a Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, St. Mary’s Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College, London, England
^b Department of Surgical Oncology and Technology, St. Mary’s Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College, London, England
^c Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Royal Brompton Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College, London, England

^_* Address correspondence to Dr Murtuza, Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, St. Mary’s Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College, London, W2 1NY, England (Email: b.murtuza{at}imperial.ac.uk).

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, athough 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.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. Scarci, C. Young, and H. Fallouh Is ministernotomy superior to conventional approach for aortic valve replacement? Interactive CardioVascular and Thoracic Surgery, August 1, 2009; 9(2): 314 - 317. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. Modi, A. Hassan, and W. R. Chitwood Jr. Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg., November 1, 2008; 34(5): 943 - 952. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]