$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$
$$\longleftharp{xx}$$,
$$\longrightharp{xx}$$,
Among heart valve lesions diagnosed as hemodynamically relevant and clinically receiving particular attention, aortic valve stenosis is the most common valvular pathology in the United States and developed countries1,2. In the Cardiovascular Health Study, 2% of patients had frank aortic stenosis, with a clear increase in prevalence with growing age: 1.3% in patients aged 65-75 years, 2.4% in those aged 75-85 years, and 4% in patients older than 85 years1. For symptomatic patients presenting with severe aortic valve stenosis, aortic valve replacement is a Class I recommendation in the guidelines of the American Heart Association for the management of patients with valvular heart disease3.
Conventional surgical aortic valve replacement through median full sternotomy (FS) has been established as the gold standard for treating aortic valve stenosis with excellent results in terms of morbidity and mortality4. These results have encouraged the extension of therapeutic indications to older patients and patients with a higher risk profile. A number of treatment strategies have been implemented in these patient subsets to maintain the same good results achieved by conventional surgical aortic valve replacement in the general population. Among these alternative treatment modalities, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) was introduced in 2002 by Cribier and colleagues5. Performed initially in moribund patients, TAVI has rapidly emerged as the treatment of choice for patients with severe aortic stenosis who are not suitable for conventional surgical aortic valve replacement6,7, or as a less invasive approach for surgery for patients at high risk8,9.
Despite the improved outcomes of TAVI in selected patient subsets, many patients with symptomatic aortic valve stenosis are still candidates for surgical aortic valve replacement. In these patients, FS aortic valve replacement is the most frequently used approach by cardiac surgeons. Nevertheless, various 'minimally invasive' techniques have been developed with the rationale of reducing surgical trauma10. All these minimal-access techniques have aimed at improving patient comfort by reducing post-operative pain and accelerating patient recovery by shortening the hospital stay and potentially saving global costs10. Among minimally invasive incisional approaches upper hemi-sternotomy (UHS) and right anterior mini-thoracotomy (RAMT) have become the predominant techniques reported in the literature11. Right anterior mini-thoracotomy for aortic valve replacement was initially reported by Benetti et al.12, and upper hemi-sternotomy was first described by several authors11. In addition to incisional alternatives, two arterial perfusion strategies are currently used: i) peripheral femoral arterial cannulation, which is more frequently employed than ii) central aortic cannulation.
In spite of reported improvement in patient outcomes following minimally invasive aortic valve replacement, concerns about the disadvantages of restricted operative field and peripheral arterial perfusion strategies13 lead many cardiac surgeons to not let their patients benefit from potential advantages of minimal access approaches for aortic valve replacement. The goal of this protocol is to describe in detail this technique of minimally invasive aortic valve replacement through a right anterior mini-thoracotomy without rib resection/fracture, and with central aortic cannulation for arterial perfusion. By following this protocol, a larger number of cardiac surgeons can perform right anterior mini-thoracotomy for aortic valve replacement in certain patient groups. Patient selection and limitations of the technique are discussed. Early results are compared to those of a cohort of patients undergoing isolated aortic valve replacement by full sternotomy.