Background and aim of the study: Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement via ministernotomy (ministernotomy-AVR) or minithoracotomy (minithoracotomy-AVR) is gaining popularity. To date, a direct comparison of ministernotomy-AVR versus minithoracotomy-AVR is lacking. The study aim was to compare these two procedures from a cost-benefit perspective.
Methods: Eight reports from the United States were selected from amongst 33,494 literature citations based on sample size and data completeness. Perioperative variables were collected for each surgical approach. Fixed and variable costs were estimated as cost per case in excess of full sternotomy AVR procedures.
Results: Ministernotomy-AVR patients were of a significantly lower mean age (59.8 years versus 67.9 years), ejection fraction (50.4-51.6% versus 56.1-57.8%), shorter cardiopulmonary bypass time (97.2 min versus 125.6 min) and cross-clamp time (69.9 min versus 87.9 min), a lower rate of blood transfusion (25.9% versus 64.4%), and a shorter length of hospital stay (5.7 versus 6.2 days). There were no significant inter-group differences in 30-day mortality, conversion to sternotomy, neurologic events, arrhythmia, wound infection, or postoperative bleeding. Assuming a volume of 50 cases per year, the added operative cost per case for a minithoracotomy-AVR was US$ 4,254 compared to US$ 290 for a ministernotomy-AVR. The added costs per case, assuming 200 cases per year, were US$ 4,209 and US$ 290, respectively. A minithoracotomy-AVR program performing 50 cases per year adds US$ 1,063,665 of operative costs over five years, compared to US$ 72,500 for a ministernotomy-AVR program.
Conclusion: The present analysis suggested that the clinical benefits of ministernotomy-AVR are comparable or better than those of minithoracotomy-AVR, and at lower costs. Healthcare delivery organizations should consider the results of cost-benefit examinations when developing surgical valve replacement programs.