Does obese patients benefit from isolated aortic valve replacement through a partial upper sternotomy?

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1222265/v1

PDF

Research Article

Does obese patients benefit from isolated aortic valve replacement through a partial upper sternotomy?

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1222265/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

You are reading this latest preprint version

Objective: Controversial opinions exist for aortic valve replacement(AVR) through partial upper sternotomy in obese patients. Moreover, this study sought to investigate the potential clinical advantage of partial upper sternotomy aortic valve replacement (mini-AVR) over conventional full sternotomy aortic valve replacement (con-AVR) in obese patients.

Methods: This was a retrospective and observational study. From January 2015 to December 2020, a total of 184 obese [body mass index (BMI)≥30 kg/m²] patients undergoing isolated primary AVR were included: 98 patients underwent conventional full sternotomy and 86 patients underwent partial upper sternotomy. Propensity score(PS) matching was applied to eliminate the basline imbalances in the mini-AVR and the con-AVR groups.

Results: After one-to-one propensity score matching,two groups of 60 patients were obtained.No in-hospital death occurred in the two groups.In addition,cardiopulmonary bypass time and total operative time were similar across the 2 groups, but the aortic cross-clamp time was significantly shorter in the con-AVR group (P = .022). The amount of mediastinal drainage at 48 hours after surgery (P=.018) and postoperative blood transfusions (P=.014) were significantly lower in the mini-AVR group. There was no difference in ventilation time (P=.145), but a shorter intensive care unit stay time (P=.021) in the mini-AVR group.

Conclusion: This study demonstrates that aortic valve replacement through a mini-AVR in obese patients is a safe and effective procedure. It outperformed con-AVR in terms of blood loss,blood product transfusion,and ICU stay.

Aortic valve replacement

Obesity

Partial upper sternotomy

Currently, in light of the rapid development of science, people's accelerated pace of work and life, the reduction of physical activity and unhealthy diet, people have a higher nutritional intake than that which they need given their levels of caloric exertion, and obesity is becoming an increasingly hefty global health problem^[1].The proportion of obese patients [body mass index (BMI)≥30 kg/m²] in cardiac surgery continues to rise. Obesity does not increase cardiac surgical mortality, but does increase the incidence of postoperative ventilator use, acute kidney injury, and poor incision healing^[2].Since the 1990s,AVR through partial upper sternotomy (mini-AVR) has been proven to be safe,without increasing in-hospital mortality and postoperative complications^[3]. Many articles have compared the advantages and disadvantages of aortic valve replacement via a mini-AVR versus conventional full sternotomy (con-AVR)^[4–6].However, these articles consist of comparative studies of minimal invasive versus conventional aortic valve replacement in the general population, while a previous report has specifically described aortic valve replacement(AVR) through partial upper sternotomy in obese patients.Obese patients often also suffer from obstructive sleep apnea-hypopnea syndrome, hypertension, or Type 2 diabetes;these illnesses tend to lead to respiratory complications, heart failure and sternum infection^[7].Therefore,we believe that aortic valve replacement through a mini-AVR is of great benefit to obese patients.

The aim of this study was to investigate whether AVR through a mini-AVR is feasible and superior to a con-AVR in obese patients.

Patients

This is a retrospective study, which was approved by our institution review board,it prospectively collected data from 984 patients with aortic valve disease who underwent isolated AVR in our department between January 2015 and December 2020.Of these, a total of 184 patients met the following criteria: (1)preoperative BMI ≥30 kg/m²; (2) age≥18 years; (3) no previous cardiac surgery; (4) non-emergency operation; and (5) left ventricular ejection fraction> 30%. Of the 184 patients, 98 underwent surgery through a con-AVR, and 86 underwent through a mini-AVR. All operations were performed by senior surgeon in our department. Due to differences in the preoperative characteristics and to avoid selection bias, data analysis was performed using a propensity score matching, with 60 matched patients in each group (Figure 1).

Surgical technique for mini-AVR

All patients were operated on in a supine position and under static aspiration compound anesthesia. A midline skin incision approximately 8 to 10-cm in length was performed from the manubriosternal junction to the third or fourth(BMI>40 kg/m²)intercostal space (ICS).A “J-shaped” sternotomy exiting through the right third or fourth ICS was used. It was important to avoid damaging the right mammary artery. Next, the sternum was opened with a small sternum opener, the pericardium was opened and pulled on, and the ascending aorta, superior vena cava, and right atrial appendage were exposed. Following full systemic heparinization, cardiopulmonary bypass was established using direct central aortic and right atrium cannulation despite the limited space available. A left ventricular vent was placed through the right upper pulmonary vein.Mild hypothermia (systemic temperature of 32°C) was used consistently.After the aortic cross-clamp was applied and hypothermic 4°C blood cardioplegia was antegradely infused into the aortic root to stop the heart and in case of aortic regurgitation directly into the coronary ostia.The operative field was insufflated with carbon dioxide during the entire operation.Following the stopping of the heart, the diseased valve and surrounding calcium were removed, after which a standard biological or mechanical prosthesis was inserted.

Statistical Analysis

Propensity score matching analysis was performed to reduce potential selection bias with the potential confounders between the con-AVR and the mini-AVR groups. using calipers of width equal to 0.2 of the SD of the logit of the propensity score. We examined the similarity between the con-AVR and the mini-AVR groups by calculating standardized differences for each of the baseline variables. All standardized differences for each baseline variable were<0.2(20%).

All statistical analyses were performed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS; version 23).Continuous variables were tested for normal distribution using a Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. Continuous variables with a normal distribution are expressed as mean ± standard deviation (SD) and compared using a Student’s t-test; otherwise, they are expressed as median (interquartile range [IQR]) and compared with a Mann–Whitney U test. Categorical data were analyzed using the chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test. as appropriate. P-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Between January 2015 and December 2020, 984 patients with aortic valve disease were underwent isolated AVR in our department. A total of 184 individuals were eligible for enrollment. Of these, 98 individuals were treated with con-AVR and 86 individuals were treated with mini-AVR. Following propensity score matching, each analysis was conducted on cohorts with matching of 60:60 (mini-AVR: con-AVR). These patients were matched according to age, BMI, hemoglobin (Hb) and hematocrit (HCT) and were found to be comparable between the two groups. Thereafter, there was no longer any significant difference between the 2 groups for any covariate (Table 1).

Table 1

Baseline characteristics before and after propensity score matching
	All patients			Propensity matched patients
Variable	con-AVR(n=98)	mini-AVR(n=86)	P-value	con-AVR(n=60)	mini-AVR(n=60)	P-value
Age, mean ± SD	57.8 ± 12.3	62.9 ± 10.7	<.001	60.1 ±10.9	60.6 ±11.3	.878
Male [n (%)]	58(59.2)	46(53.5)	.343	32 (67)	28 (61)	.465
BMI, kg/m2, mean ± SD	35.5 ± 4.2	38.3 ± 5.3	<.001	35.9 ± 4.5	34.9 ± 5.1	.762
EuroScore, median (IQR)	7(3-12)	7(3-11)	.871	7(3-11)	7(3-11)	1.000
Ejection fraction (EF),% median [IQR]	60 (50-65)	59 (49-64)	.256	60 (52-65)	60 (55-66)	.576
History of AF[n (%)]	9(9.1)	9(10.4)	.965	7(11.7)	6(10.0)	1.000
Diabetes mellitus [n (%)]	8 (8.1)	6 (6.9)	.731	6 (10.0)	5 (8.3)	.751
Hypertension [n (%)]	62 (63.2)	52 (60.4)	.564	46 (76.7)	43 (71.7)	.531
Cerebrovascular disease [n (%)]	5(5.1)	5(5.8)	.909	3(5.0)	2(3.3)	1.000
COPD [n (%)]	5 (5.1)	4 (4.6)	1	2 (3.2)	2 (3.2)	1.000
Smoking history [n (%)]	34 (34.7)	29 (33.7)	.850	21 (35.0)	20 (33.3)	.847
Hb (mg/dl), mean ± SD	12.22±1.35	13.68±1.68	<.001	12.48±1.65	13.12±1.55	.534
HCT (%), mean ± SD	38.32±4.68	41.32±3.68	<.001	39.82±3.78	40.32±3.65	.337
BMI: body mass index; SD：standard deviation; IQR：interquartile range；AF: atrial fibrillation；COPD: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease；Hb: haemoglobin; HCT: haematocrit.

There were no patients who needed to be converted from mini-AVR to con-AVR. No significant between-group differences in cardiopulmonary bypass time, total operative time, or diameter of implanted aortic valve prosthesis were found,but the aortic cross-clamp time was significantly shorter in the con-AVR group (56.38 ±12.60 min vs 62.32 ±14.45 min; P = .022). The percentage of patients who were implanted any type of aortic valve prosthesis was similar across the 2 groups (Table 2).

Table 2

Operative data after propensity score matching
	con-AVR(n=60)	mini-AVR(n=60)	P-value
Cross-clamp time,min, mean ± SD	56.38 ±12.60	62.32 ±14.45	.022
CPB time,min, mean ± SD	85.52 ±15.35	90.68 ±16.54	.745
Total operative time,min, mean ± SD	173.32 ±41.61	176.38 ±38.45	.461
Prosthetic valves			.706
Mechanical, n (%)	39(65)	36(60)
Biologic, n (%)	21(35)	24(40)
Diameter of implanted prosthesis,mm, mean ± SD	23.34±2.55	22.8±2.24	.213
AVR: aortic valve replacement; CPB, cardiopulmonary bypass; SD: standard deviation.

Postoperative results following propensity score matching in both groups are shown in Table 3. There were no in-hospital deaths across the 2 groups. The mean quantity of mediastinal drainage volume at 48 hours following surgery (150.0 ml [IQR, 80.0-800.0 ml] vs 220.0 ml [IQR, 100.0-600.0 ml]; P=.018) and red blood cell transfusion (130.0 ml [IQR, 0-800.0 ml] vs 200.0 ml [IQR, 0-600.0 ml]; P=.014) were significantly lower in the mini-AVR group as compared to the con-AVR group. No patient needed reopening for bleeding in the con-AVR group; however, one patient was reopened for bleeding from the right mammary artery in the mini-AVR group. The mean time in the mechanical ventilator was (5.0 hours [IQR, 2.0-49.0 hours] vs 6.0 hours [IQR, 2.0-125 hours]; P=.145). This was similar in the mini-AVR group and the con-AVR group. The incidences of low cardiac output syndrome, respiratory insufficiency, and renal insufficiency were similar across the 2 groups. There was no significant difference in the rates of reintubation, sternum refixation, and wound infection between the mini-AVR and con-AVR groups. The mean ICU stay was shorter in the mini-AVR group as compared to the con-AVR group (15.0 hours [IQR, 8.0-75.0 hours] vs 19.0 hours [IQR, 10.0-168 hours]; P=.021). The median duration of hospital stay in the mini-AVR group was 10.0 days [IQR, 5.0-18 days], which was not significantly different from con-AVR group (11.0 days [IQR, 5.0-26.0 days]; P=.258).

Table 3

Postoperative results after propensity score matching
Variable	con-AVR(n=60)	mini-AVR(n=60)	P-value
Mediastinal drainage, mL/48 h, median (IQR)	220.0(100.0, 600.0)	150.0(80.0, 800.0)	.018
Red blood cell transfusion, mL, median (IQR)	200.0(0, 600.0)	130.0(0, 800.0)	.014
Reexploration due to bleeding, n (%)	0	1(1.7)	1.000
Ventilation time (h), median (IQR)	6(2, 125)	5(2, 49)	.145
Reintubation (%), n (%)	2(3.3)	0	.476
Low cardiac output syndrome, n (%)	1(1.7)	2(3.3)	1.000
Respiratory insufficiency, n (%)	9(15)	8(13.3)	1.000
Renal insufficiency			1.000
Without dialysis,n (%)	4(6.7)	4(6.7)
With dialysis,n (%)	2(3.3)	3(5.0)
Wound infection (%)	0	1(1.7)	1.000
Sternum refixation, n (%)	0	2(3.3)	1.000
ICU stay,h, median (IQR)	19(10, 168)	15(8, 75)	.021
Hospital stay, d, median (IQR)	11.0(5.0, 26)	10.0(5.0, 18)	.258
In-hospital mortality, n (%)	0	0	1.000
AVR: aortic valve replacement；SD: standard deviation；IQR：interquartile range；ICU：Intensive care unit.

Our short-term data suggest that mini-AVR is as safe and effective as con-AVR in obese patients.There were no differences in cardiopulmonary bypass time,total operative time, or diameter of implanted aortic valve prosthesis across the 2 groups. The incidences of reintubation, sternum refixation, wound infection, low cardiac output syndrome, respiratory insufficiency, and renal insufficiency were not different between mini-AVR and con-AVR patients, and the length of hospital stay was also similar. Most importantly, Our results showed that the postoperative mediastinal drainage and red blood cell transfusion were significantly lower in the mini-AVR group, as well as a shortened ICU stay.However, in this study, one patient in the mini-AVR group needed to be reopened due to bleeding because their right mammary artery was damaged, thereby serving as are minder to be careful not to damage the right mammary artery during the operation.

Minimally invasive AVR through upper partial sternotomy was introduced by Svensson in 1997^[8]. Currently, upper partial sternotomy has been widely used in the context of aortic valve surgery, aortic root surgery, and even acute type A aortic dissection surgery^[9]. AVR through partial upper sternotomy can yield excellent results in terms of postoperative pain and reduction of hospitalization, ventilation times, occurrence of renal failure, and need for blood transfusion^{[3, 10, 11]}. In recent years, although transcatheter AVR has developed rapidly and surgical indications have been further expanded, it is still mainly performed in medium- and high-risk patients^{[12, 13]}. AVR through a right anterolateral minimally invasive incision often requires femoral artery and vein intubation and may increase neurological complications^[14]; therefore, partial upper sternotomy is the most common incision for minimally invasive AVR in our center. The worldwide prevalence of obesity is at its highest level ever recorded and continues to increase^[15]. In China, more than 50% of adults are overweight or obese, with overweight and obesity rates of 34.3% and 16.4%, respectively, making the Chinese population the largest obese population worldwide^[16]. The proportion of obese patients in cardiac surgery continues to grow. Brinkman et al.^[17] believe that the chest wall of obese patients is hypertrophic and that surgical field exposure is harder in heart surgery as such; therefore, it should be carefully considered in the context of heart surgery through partial upper sternotomy in obese patients. Several studies have revealed that the mini-AVR group has the same postoperative mortality and major complication rates as the con-AVR group in obese patients^{[4, 18]}. Our study further supports this idea.

Mini-AVR increases cardiopulmonary bypass time, total operative time and aortic cross-clamp time due to exposure difficulties^[19.20]. Our study further showed that only the aortic cross-clamp time was increased and the cardiopulmonary bypass time and total operative time were slightly longer; however, the difference was not statistically significant. This may be attributed to two different reasons. First, when a patient was extremely obese (BMI>40 kg/m2), the incision was extended to the fourth intercostal space. The exposure is excellent. Second, due to diminished bleeding and shorter surgical incision, the time for hemostasis and chest closure was shortened. Therefore, in extremely obese patients (BMI>40 kg/m²), we can extend the incision to the fourth intercostal level. This can provide a better exposure of the operational area, and this may also leads to better sternal stability compared to full sternotomy,thereby stabilizing the thorax while still ensuring the advantages of the partial upper sternotomy.

Some scholars believe that obese patients suffer from excessive hypertrophy of the chest wall and poor compliance, and are prone to postoperative sternum shaking and surgical incision infection and other complications^{[2, 21]}. While these complications are not life-threatening, they can prolong hospital stay and increase the risk of acquiring a nosocomial infection. In our study, two patients required sternum refixation, as did one patient with wound infection in the mini-AVR group; however, no patient in the con-AVR group did. This result is contrary to our subjective clinical impression, possibly showing that the pathogenesis of sternum shivering or infection is multifaceted and that partial upper sternotomy is not enough to reduce the probability of this complication.

Excess adipose tissue in the abdomen and around the chest wall of obese patients presses the chest and immerses the breathing muscles, limiting the motility of the chest and the diaphragm in a way that is more pronounced during supine sleep^[7].Therefore, lung capacity and functional residual volume are reduced and breathing becomes shallow and fast, resulting in an increase in dead cavity ventilation, effective alveolar ventilation, and a maximum amount of independent ventilation. Therefore, obese patients are obviously affected as regards their respiratory function, which often leads to a prolonged ICU stay. In addition, the incidence of tracheal intubation and reintubation following postoperative extraction is higher in obese patients as compared to general patients, both of which increase the use of hospital resources^[22]. A partial upper sternotomy can reduce postoperative pain and the psychological burden of patients. It can also encourage patients to get out of bed early after surgery and accelerate the recovery of respiratory function and physical function. It is more aligned with the rapid rehabilitation concept of modern medicine^{[23, 24]}. Therefore, we believe that obese patients can benefit more from a partial upper sternotomy than can non-obese patients.

We acknowledge there are limitations to this study. First, this is a retrospective study, and, although we applied a propensity matching analysis, we still cannot completely overlook that the presence of unknown confounding variables might affect the observations. Second, in this study, we defined obesity only as a BMI of ≥30 kg/m², because BMI calculations use overall body weight, without reflecting the distribution of body fat and the proportion of fat in one’s body. Therefore, people with a normal weight but excess fat may be overlooked, while those with higher muscle tissue content may be misdiagnosed. the study included a rather small number of patients.

Aortic valve replacement through a mini-AVR in obese patients is a feasible technique. As compared to con-AVR, significant benefits of blood loss, blood product transfusion, and ICU stay were clearly observed.

AVR=aortic valve replacement

BMI=body mass index

ICS=intercostal space

ICU=intensive care unit

CPB=cardiopulmonary bypass

IQR=interquartile range

SD=standard deviation

PS=propensity score

Hb=haemoglobin

HCT=haematocrit

Ethical Approval and Consent to participate

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Fujian Medical University Union Hospital and the Ethics Committee of Fujian Medical University.

Consent for publication

Not applicable

Availability of Data and Materials

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no data sets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

Author Contributions

Xianbiao Xie, Liangwan Chen and Xiaofu Dai designed the study, performed the statistical analysis, participated in the operation, and drafted the manuscript. Zhihuang Qiu and Qingsong Wu collected the clinical data. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgement

We highly acknowledge the contribution by the participating doctors: Dao-zhong Chen, Feng Lin, Qi-min Wang, Han-fan Qiu, Xue-shan Huang.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest to this work.

Funding

This research was sponsored by by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (U2005202), the Fujian Province Major Science and Technology Program (2018YZ001-1), Fujian provincial health technology project(2019-ZQN-50), the Natural Science Foundation of Fujian Province (2020J02056).

Matthias, Blüher. Obesity: global epidemiology and pathogenesis[J]. Nature Reviews Endocrinology, 2019.
Atalan Nazan,Fazlioğulları Osman,Kunt Atike Tekeli et al. Effect of body mass index on early morbidity and mortality after isolated coronary artery bypass graft surgery.[J]. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth, 2012, 26: 813-7.
Konertz W, Waldenberger F, Schmutzler M , et al. Minimal access valve surgery through superior partial sternotomy: A preliminary study[J]. The Journal of heart valve disease, 1996, 5(6):638-640.
Paparella Domenico,Malvindi Pietro Giorgio,Santarpino Giuseppe et al. Full sternotomy and minimal access approaches for surgical aortic valve replacement: a multicentre propensity-matched study.[J] .Eur J Cardiothorac Surg, 2020, 57: 709-716.
Welp H A, Isabell H, Sven M, et al. Outcomes of aortic valve replacement via partial upper sternotomy versus conventional aortic valve replacement in obese patients[J]. Interactive Cardiovascular & Thoracic Surgery, 2018(4):4.
Furukawa Nobuyuki,Kuss Oliver,Aboud Anas et al. Ministernotomy versus conventional sternotomy for aortic valve replacement: matched propensity score analysis of 808 patients.[J] .Eur J Cardiothorac Surg, 2014, 46: 221-6; discussion 226-7.
Smith, R, L, et al. Does Body Mass Index Affect Outcomes for Aortic Valve Replacement Surgery for Aortic Stenosis?[J]. Annals of Thoracic Surgery, 2012.
Svensson L G . Minimal-Access "J" or "j" Sternotomy for Valvular, Aortic, and Coronary Operations or Reoperations[J]. Annals of Thoracic Surgery, 1997, 64(5):0-1503.
Xie X B, Dai X F, Fang G H, et al. Extensive repair of acute type A aortic dissection through a partial upper sternotomy and using complete stent-graft replacement of the arch[J]. Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, 2020.
Mikus E , Calvi S , Campo G , et al. Full Sternotomy, Hemisternotomy and Minithoracotomy for Aortic Valve Surgery: Is There a Difference?[J]. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery, 2018, 106.
Sharaf-Eldin S , ztürk znur, Michael W , et al. Propensity score analysis of outcomes Following minimal access versus conventional aortic valve replacement[J]. European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery, 2015(2):2.
Bogyi Matthias,Schernthaner Rüdiger E,Loewe Christian et al. Subclinical Leaflet Thrombosis After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Meta-Analysis.[J] .JACC Cardiovasc Interv, 2021, 14: 2643-2656.
Nguyen Virginia,Willner Nadav,Eltchaninoff Helene et al. Trends in aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis: a French nationwide study.[J] .Eur Heart J, 2021, undefined: undefined.
Murzi Michele,Glauber Mattia,Central versus femoral cannulation during minimally invasive aortic valve replacement.[J] .Ann Cardiothorac Surg, 2015, 4: 59-61.
L Abarca-Gómez, Abdeen Z A , Hamid Z A , et al. Worldwide trends in body-mass index, underweight, overweight, and obesity from 1975 to 2016: a pooled analysis of 2416 population-based measurement studies in 128·9 million children, adolescents, and adults - ScienceDirect[J]. Lancet, 2017, 390(10113):2627-2642.
Pan Xiong-Fei,Wang Limin,Pan An,Epidemiology and determinants of obesity in China.[J] .Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol, 2021, 9: 373-392.
Brinkman W T , Hoffman W , Dewey T M , et al. Aortic Valve Replacement Surgery: Comparison of Outcomes in Matched Sternotomy and PORT ACCESS Groups[J]. Annals of Thoracic Surgery, 2010, 90(1):131-135.
Borger M A, Moustafine V, Conradi L , et al. A randomized multicenter trial of minimally invasive rapid deployment versus conventional full sternotomy aortic valve replacement.[J]. Annals of Thoracic Surgery, 2015, 99(1):17-25.
Masiello Paolo,Coscioni Enrico,Panza Antonio et al. Surgical results of aortic valve replacement via partial upper sternotomy: comparison with median sternotomy.[J] .Cardiovasc Surg, 2002, 10: 333-8.
Gilmanov D, Bevilacqua S, Murzi M, Cerillo AG, Gasbarri T, Kallushi E et al. Minimally invasive and conventional aortic valve replacement: a propensity score analysis. Ann Thorac Surg 2013;96:837–43.
D. Guss and T. Bhattacharyya, “Perioperative management of the obese orthopaedic patient,” Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, vol. 14, no. 7, pp. 425–432, 2006.
Borel Anne-Laure,Schwebel Carole,Planquette Benjamin et al. Initiation of nutritional support is delayed in critically ill obese patients: a multicenter cohort study.[J] .Am J Clin Nutr, 2014, 100: 859-66.
Di Eusanio Marco,Vessella Walter,Carozza Roberto et al. Ultra fast-track minimally invasive aortic valve replacement: going beyond reduced incisions.[J] .Eur J Cardiothorac Surg, 2018, 53: ii14-ii18.
Raja S G, Benedetto U, Amrani M. Aortic valve replacement through J-shaped partial upper sternotomy[J]. Journal of Thoracic Disease, 2013, 5(Suppl 6):S662-S668.

PDF

Editorial decision: Major revision
02 Jun, 2022
Reviewers agreed at journal
19 May, 2022
Reviewers invited by journal
19 May, 2022
Editor assigned by journal
04 Jan, 2022
First submitted to journal
01 Jan, 2022

You are reading this latest preprint version

Does obese patients benefit from isolated aortic valve replacement through a partial upper sternotomy?

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Material And Methods

Patients

Surgical technique for mini-AVR

Statistical Analysis

Results

Discussion

Limitations

Conclusions

Abbreviations

Declarations

References

Status:

Version 1