Limited versus full sternotomy for aortic valve replacement

CONCLUSIONS: The evidence was of very low to moderate certainty. Sample sizes were small and underpowered to demonstrate differences in some outcomes. Clinical heterogeneity was also noted. Considering these limitations, there may be little to no effect on mortality. Differences in extracorporeal support times are uncertain, comparing upper hemi-sternotomy to full sternotomy for aortic valve replacement. Before widespread adoption of the minimally invasive approach can be recommended, there is a need for a well-designed and adequately powered prospective randomised controlled trial. Such a study would benefit from also performing a robust cost analysis. Growing patient preference for minimally invasive techniques merits thorough quality of life analyses to be included as end points, as well as quantitative measures of physiological reserve.PMID:38054555 | PMC:PMC10698838 | DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD011793.pub3
Source: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews - Category: General Medicine Authors: Source Type: research