Back to Search Start Over

Mini-sternotomy versus conventional sternotomy for aortic valve replacement: a randomised controlled trial

Authors :
W. Andrew Owens
James Mason
Andrew T. Goodwin
Helen C. Hancock
Adetayo Kasim
Gavin J. Murphy
Enoch Akowuah
Rebecca Maier
Source :
BMJ Open, Vol 11, Iss 1 (2021), BMJ Open, BMJ Open, 2021, Vol.11(1), pp.e041398 [Peer Reviewed Journal]
Publication Year :
2021
Publisher :
BMJ, 2021.

Abstract

ObjectiveTo compare clinical and health economic outcomes after manubrium-limited mini-sternotomy (intervention) and conventional median sternotomy (usual care).DesignA single-blind, randomised controlled trial.SettingSingle centre UK National Health Service tertiary hospital.ParticipantsAdult patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR) surgery.InterventionsIntervention was manubrium-limited mini-sternotomy performed using a 5–7 cm midline incision. Usual care was median sternotomy performed using a midline incision from the sternal notch to the xiphisternum.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe primary outcome was the proportion of patients who received a red cell transfusion postoperatively and within 7 days of index surgery. Secondary outcomes included proportion of patients receiving a non-red cell blood component transfusion and number of units transfused within 7 days and during index hospital stay, quality of life and cost-effectiveness analyses.Results270 patients were randomised, received surgery and contributed to the intention to treat analysis. No difference between mini and conventional sternotomy in red-cell transfusion within 7 days was found; 23/135 patients in each arm received a transfusion, OR 1.0 (95% CI 0.5 to 2.0) and risk difference 0.0 (95% CI −0.1 to 0.1). Mini-sternotomy reduced chest drain losses (mean 181.6 mL (SD 138.7) vs conventional, mean 306·9 mL (SD 348.6)); this did not reduce red-cell transfusions. Mean valve size and postoperative valve function were comparable between mini-sternotomy and conventional groups; 23 mm vs 24 mm and 6/134 moderate or severe aortic regurgitation vs 3/130, respectively. Mini-sternotomy resulted in longer bypass (82.7 min (SD 23.5) vs 59.6 min (SD 15.1)) and cross-clamp times (64.1 min (SD 17.1) vs 46·3 min (SD 10.7)). Conventional sternotomy was more cost-effective with only a 5.8% probability of mini-sternotomy being cost-effective at a willingness to pay of £20 000/QALY (Quality Adjusted Life Years).ConclusionsAVR via mini-sternotomy did not reduce red blood cell transfusion within 7 days following surgery when compared with conventional sternotomy.Trial registration numberISRCTN29567910; Results.

Details

ISSN :
20446055
Volume :
11
Database :
OpenAIRE
Journal :
BMJ Open
Accession number :
edsair.doi.dedup.....b4b50bec49cea872bc8c4d550dcc6b3b
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-041398