Objectives Conventional mitral valve surgery through median sternotomy improves long-term survival with acceptable morbidity and mortality. However, less-invasive approaches to mitral valve surgery are now increasingly employed. Whether minimally invasive mitral valve surgery is superior to conventional surgery is uncertain. Methods A retrospective analysis of patients who underwent mitral valve surgery via minithoracotomy or median sternotomy between 2012 and 2018. A propensity score-matched analysis was generated to eliminate differences in relevant preoperative risk factors between the two groups. Results Data from 525 patients were evaluated, 189 underwent minithoracotomy and 336 underwent median sternotomy. The 30 day mortality was similar between the minithoracotomy and conventional surgery groups (1 and 3%, respectively; p = 0.25). No differences were seen in the incidence of stroke (p = 1.00), surgical site infections (p = 0.09), or myocardial infarction (p = 0.23), or in total hospital cost (p = 0.48). However, the minimally invasive approach was associated with fewer patients receiving transfusions (59% versus 76% in the conventional group; p = 0.001) or requiring reoperation for bleeding (3% versus 9%, respectively; p = 0.03). There were no significant differences in 5 year survival between the minithoracotomy and conventional surgery groups (93% versus 86%, respectively; p = 0.21) and freedom from mitral valve reoperation (95% versus 94%, respectively; p = 0.79). Conclusions In patients undergoing mitral valve surgery, a minimally invasive approach is feasible, safe, and reproducible with excellent short-term outcomes; mid-term outcomes and efficacy were also seen to be comparable to conventional sternotomy.

Objectives: Current national registries are lacking detailed pathology-driven analysis and long-term patients outcomes. The Heart Valve Society (HVS) aortic valve (AV) repair research network started the Aortic Valve Insufficiency and ascending aorta Aneurysm InternATiOnal Registry (AVIATOR) to evaluate long-term patient outcomes of AV repair and replacement. The purpose of the current report is to describe the AVIATOR initiative and report in a descriptive manner the patients included. Methods:The AV repair research network includes surgeons, cardiologists, and scientists and established an online database compliant with the guidelines for reporting valve-related events. Prospective inclusion started from January 2013. Adult patients (18 years or older) who were operated on between 1995 and 2017 with complete procedural specification of the type of repair/replacement were selected for descriptive analysis.Results: Currently 58 centers from 17 countries include 4896 patients with 89% AV repair (n ¼ 4379) versus 11% AV replacement (n ¼ 517). AV repair was either isolated (28%), or associated with tubular/partial root replacement (22%) or valve-sparing root replacement (49%) with an in-hospital mortality of 0.5%, 1.7%, and 1.2%, respectively. AV replacement was either isolated (24%), associated with tubular/partial root replacement (17%) or root replacement (59%) with an in-hospital mortality of 1%, 2.6%, and 2.0%, respectively. Conclusions:The multicenter surgical AVIATOR registry, by applying uniform definitions, should provide a solid evidence base to evaluate the place of repair versus replacement on the basis of long-term patient outcomes. Obtaining data completeness and adequate representation of all surgery types remain challenging. Toward the near future AVIATOR-medical will start to study natural history, as will AVIATOR-kids, with a focus on pediatric disease.

No abstract