title: Is transapical aortic valve implantation really less invasive than minimally invasive aortic valve replacement?
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Transcatheter valve implants currently draw their justification for use from reduction of perioperative risk. However, patient age and comorbidities are independent predictors of adverse outcome after aortic valve replacement, regardless of surgical approach. Therefore, it is unclear whether transapical aortic valve implantation really improves outcomes in high-risk patients.
  
  
  METHODS
  We included a total of 51 high-risk patients with severe aortic valve stenosis. Patients were allocated to transapical aortic valve implantation (n = 21) or minimally invasive aortic valve replacement via a partial upper sternotomy (n = 30), in a nonrandomized fashion. Patient age, preoperative comorbidities, and perioperative risk, expressed as logistic EuroSCORE (38% +/- 14% vs 35% +/- 9%), were matched between the 2 groups.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Early morbidity and mortality were comparable between groups, but transapical aortic valve implantation was associated with shorter operative time (P = .004), ventilation time (P < .001), intensive care unit stay (P < .001), and hospital stay (P < .001). Thirty-day mortality was 14% (n = 3) in the transcatheter group versus 10% (n = 3) in the surgical group. After a mean follow-up of 12 +/- 4 months (100% complete), there were a total of 5 (24%) deaths in the transapical group versus 5 (17%) deaths in the open surgery group. There was 1 intraoperative death in the transapical group versus none in the surgery group. In the transapical group, there were 2 re-explorations for bleeding, 2 intraoperative conversions, 1 case of prosthesis migration, and 2 impairments of coronary arteries. The surgery group included 1 re-exploration, 1 stroke, 1 pacemaker implantation for complete atrioventricular block, and 3 cases of atrial fibrillation.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Current data suggest a faster postoperative recovery after transapical aortic valve implantation, with early and late morbidity and mortality comparable with those of minimally invasive aortic valve replacement via partial upper sternotomy.
authors.affiliation: Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Hospital of the Johann Wolfgang Goethe University, Theodor Stern Kai 7, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
authors.forename: Andreas
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Zierer
authors.forename: Gerhard
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: Wimmer-Greinecker
authors.forename: Sven
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Martens
authors.forename: Anton
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Moritz
authors.forename: Mirko
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Doss
mesh_terms: D000367:Age Factors; D000368:Aged; D001021:Aortic Valve / Q000601:surgery; D001024:Aortic Valve Stenosis / Q000401:mortality / Q000601:surgery*; D006328:Cardiac Catheterization; D015897:Comorbidity; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006350:Heart Valve Prosthesis; D019918:Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation / Q000379:methods* / Q000401:mortality; D017052:Hospital Mortality; D006801:Humans; D007902:Length of Stay / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D008297:Male; D019060:Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures / Q000401:mortality; D011183:Postoperative Complications / Q000401:mortality; D012307:Risk Factors; D013997:Time Factors; D016896:Treatment Outcome