Quality of life, satisfaction and outcomes after ministernotomy versus full sternotomy isolated aortic valve replacement (QUALITY-AVR): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Emiliano A Rodríguez-Caulo, Ana Guijarro-Contreras, Juan Otero-Forero, María José Mataró, Gemma Sánchez-Espín, Arantza Guzón, Carlos Porras, Miguel Such, Antonio Ordóñez, José María Melero-Tejedor, Manuel Jiménez-Navarro, Emiliano A Rodríguez-Caulo, Ana Guijarro-Contreras, Juan Otero-Forero, María José Mataró, Gemma Sánchez-Espín, Arantza Guzón, Carlos Porras, Miguel Such, Antonio Ordóñez, José María Melero-Tejedor, Manuel Jiménez-Navarro

Abstract

Background: During the last decade, the use of ministernotomy in cardiac surgery has increased. Quality of life and patient satisfaction after ministernotomy have never been compared to conventional full sternotomy in randomised trials. The aim of the study is to determine if this minimally invasive approach improves quality of life, satisfaction and clinical morbimortality outcomes.

Methods/design: The QUALITY-AVR trial is a single-blind, single-centre, independent, and pragmatic randomised clinical trial comparing ministernotomy ("J" shaped upper hemisternotomy toward right 4th intercostal space) to full sternotomy in patients with isolated severe aortic stenosis scheduled for elective aortic valve replacement. One hundred patients will be randomised in a 1:1 computational fashion. Sample size was determined for the primary end point with alpha error of 0.05 and with power of 90% in detecting differences between intervention groups of ≥ 0.10 points in change from baseline quality of life Questionnaire EuroQOL-index (EQ-5D-5 L®), measured at 1, 6 or 12 months. Secondary endpoints are: the differences in change from other baseline EQ-5D-5 L® utilities (visual analogue scale, Health Index and Severity Index), cardiac surgery specific satisfaction questionnaire (SATISCORE®), a combined safety endpoint of four major adverse complications at 1 month (all-cause mortality, acute myocardial infarction, neurologic events and acute renal failure), bleeding through drains within the first 24 h, intubation time, postoperative hospital and intensive care unit length of stay, transfusion needs during the first 72 h and 1-year survival rates. Clinical follow up is scheduled at baseline, 1, 6, and 12 months after randomization. All clinical outcomes are recorded following the Valve Academic Research Consortium 2 criteria.

Discussion: The QUALITY-AVR trial aims to test the hypothesis that ministernotomy improves quality of life, satisfaction and clinical outcomes in patients referred for isolated aortic valve replacement. Statistically significant differences favouring ministernotomy could modify the surgical "gold standard" for aortic stenosis surgery, and subsequently the need to change the control group in transcatheter aortic valve implantation trials. Recruitment started on 18 March 2016. In November 2017, 75 patients were enrolled.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT02726087 . Registered on 13 March 2016.

Keywords: Aortic stenosis; Aortic valve replacement; Clinical trials; Ministernotomy; Quality of life; Satisfaction.

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This trial has been approved by our Institution’s Ethics Committee for Research (CEI Provincial de Málaga, Institutional Review Board), and was registered at Consent for publication

Figure 1 was ceded with permission by Edwards Lifesciences®.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Ministernotomy extended in a J-shape into the right fourth intercostal space. a Before sawing. b Surgical view after sawing, retraction and cannulation
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Standard protocol items: recommendation for interventional trials (SPIRIT) figure of participant timeline. EQ5D, Euroqol 5 dimensions Quality of life Questionnaire; M, month; NYHA, New York heart Association; OR, surgery in the operating room; PREOP, preoperative; VAS, visual analogue scale

References

    1. Carabello BA, Paulus WJ. Aortic stenosis. Lancet. 2009;373:956–966. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60211-7.
    1. Bonow JM, O’Brien SM, Wu C, Sikora JA, Griffith BP, Gammie JS. Isolated aortic valve replacement in North America comprising 108,687 patients in 10 years: changes in risks, valve types, and outcomes in the STS National Database. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2009;137:82–90. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2008.08.015.
    1. Rao PN, Kumar AS. Aortic valve replacement through right thoracotomy. Tex Heart Inst J. 1993;20:307–308.
    1. Cosgrove DM, 3rd, Sabik JF. Minimally invasive approach for aortic valve operations. Ann Thorac Surg. 1996;62:596–597. doi: 10.1016/0003-4975(96)00418-3.
    1. Svensson LG. Minimal-access “J” or “j” sternotomy for valvular, aortic and coronary operations or reoperations. Ann Thorac Surg. 1997;64:1501–1503. doi: 10.1016/S0003-4975(97)00927-2.
    1. Rosengart TK, Feldman T, Borger MA, Vassiliades TA, Jr, Gillinov AM, Hoercher KJ, et al. Percutaneous and minimally invasive valve procedures, a scientific statement from the AHA, ACCSA, CSA, CCC, FGTBIWG. Circulation. 2008;117:1750–1767. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.188525.
    1. Dogan S, Dzemali O, Wimmer-Greinecker G, et al. Minimally invasive versus conventional aortic valve replacement: a prospective randomised trial. Ann Thorac Surg. 2005;12:76–80.
    1. Aris A, Camara ML, Montiel J, Delgado LJ, Galan J, Litvan H. Ministernotomy versus median sternotomy for aortic valve replacement: a prospective, randomized study. Ann Thorac Surg. 1999;67:1583–1587. doi: 10.1016/S0003-4975(99)00362-8.
    1. Machler HE, Bergmann P, Anelli-Monti M, et al. Minimally invasive versus conventional aortic valve operations: a prospective study in 120 patients. Ann Thorac Surg. 1999;67:1001–1005. doi: 10.1016/S0003-4975(99)00072-7.
    1. Bonacchi M, Prifti E, Giunti G, Frati G, Sani G. Does ministernotomy improve postoperative outcome in aortic valve operation? A prospective randomized study. Ann Thorac Surg. 2002;73:460–465. doi: 10.1016/S0003-4975(01)03402-6.
    1. Moustafa MA, Abdelsamad AA, Zakaria G, Omarah MM. Minimal vs median sternotomy for aortic valve replacement. Asian Cardiovasc Thorac Ann. 2007;15:472–475. doi: 10.1177/021849230701500605.
    1. Merk DR, Lehmann S, Holzhey DM, Dohmen P, Candolfi P, Misfeld M, et al. Minimal invasive aortic valve replacement surgery is associated with improved survival: a propensity-matched comparison. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2015;47:11–17. doi: 10.1093/ejcts/ezu068.
    1. Brown ML, McKellar SH, Sundt TM, Schaff H. Ministernotomy versus conventional sternotomy for aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2009;137:670–679. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2008.08.010.
    1. Phan K, Xie A, Di Eusanio M, Yan T. A Meta-analysis of minimally invasive versus conventional sternotomy for aortic valve replacement. Ann Thorac Surg. 2014;98:1499–1511. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2014.05.060.
    1. Muneretto C, Alfieri O, Cesana BM, Bisleri G, De Bonis M, Di Bartolomeo R, et al. A comparison of conventional surgery, transcatheter aortic valve replacement, and sutureless valves in “real-world” patients with aortic stenosis and intermediate- to high-risk profile. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2015;150:1570–1577. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2015.08.052.
    1. Detter C, Deuse T, Boehm DH, Reichenspurner H, Reichart B. Midterm results and quality of life after minimally invasive vs. conventional aortic valve replacement. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2002;50:337–341. doi: 10.1055/s-2002-35743.
    1. Reynolds MR, Magnuson EA, Wang K, Thourani VH, Williams M, Zajarias A, et al. Health-related quality of life after transcatheter or surgical aortic valve replacement in high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis: results from the PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valve) Trial (Cohort A) J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;7:548–558. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2012.03.075.
    1. Arnold S, Reynolds M, Wang K, Magnuson E, Baron S, Chinnakondepalli K, et al. Health status after transcatheter or surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis at increased surgical risk: results from the CoreValve US pivotal trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;8(9):1207–1217. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2015.04.018.
    1. Ford I, Norrie J. Pragmatic Trials. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:454–463. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra1510059.
    1. Kiebzak GM, Pierson LM, Campbell M, Cook JW. Use of the SF-36 general health status survey to document health-related quality of life in patients with coronary artery disease: effect of disease and response to coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Heart Lung. 2002;31:207–213. doi: 10.1067/mhl.2002.124299.
    1. Kelkar AA, Spertus J, Pang P, Pierson RF, Cody RJ, Pina IL, Hernandez A, et al. Utility of patient-reported outcome instruments in heart failure. JACC Heart Fail. 2016;4(3):165–175. doi: 10.1016/j.jchf.2015.10.015.
    1. Melville MR, Lari MA, Brown N, Young T, Gray D. Quality of life assessment using the short form 12 questionnaire is as reliable and sensitive as the short form 36 in distinguishing symptom severity in myocardial infarction survivors. Heart. 2003;89(12):1445–1446. doi: 10.1136/heart.89.12.1445.
    1. Comín-Colet J, Garin O, Lupón J, Manito N, Crespo-Leiro MG, Gómez-Bueno M, et al. Validación de la versión española del Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire. Rev Esp Cardiol. 2011;64:51–58. doi: 10.1016/j.recesp.2010.10.003.
    1. Dyer MT, Goldsmith K, Sharples L, Buxton M. A review of health utilities using the EQ-5D in studies of cardiovascular disease. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010;8:13–15. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-8-13.
    1. Llorens-León R, Navarro-Bravo R, Garrido-Babío JM, Arias A, Aguirre-Jaime A. SATISCORE: a questionnaire to evaluate patient satisfaction after cardiac surgery. Cir Cardiov. 2014;21(4):239–245.
    1. Vahanian A, Alfieri O, Andreotti F, Antunes MJ, Barón-Esquivias G, Baumgartner H, et al. Guidelines on the management of valvular heart disease (version 2012). The Joint Task Force on the Management of Valvular Heart Disease of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) Eur Heart J. 2012;33:2451–2496. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehs109.
    1. McCulloch P, Taylor I, Sasako M, Lovett B, Griffin D. Randomised trials in surgery: problems and possible solutions. BMJ. 2002;324:1448–1451. doi: 10.1136/bmj.324.7351.1448.
    1. Sang-Kyu K, Seon-Ha K, Min-Woo J, Sang-il L. Estimation of minimally important differences in the EQ-5D and SF-6D indices and their utility in stroke. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015;13:32. doi: 10.1186/s12955-015-0227-3.
    1. Pickard AS, Neary MP, Cella D. Estimation of minimally important differences in EQ-5D utility and VAS scores in cancer. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2007;5:70. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-5-70.
    1. Kappetein AP, Head SJ, Genereux P, Piazza N, van Mieghem NM, Blackstone EH. Updated standardized endpoint definitions for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 consensus document. Eur Heart J. 2012;33:2403–2418. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehs255.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorit ja yhteistyökumppanit

Sairaudet

Huumeiden interventiot

3
Tilaa