Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Surgical aortic valve replacement through conventional sternotomy yields excellent results. Minimally invasive techniques are deemed equally safe and serve as a viable and less traumatic alternative. However, it is unclear how both surgical techniques affect patient-reported outcomes. The objective of this trial is to compare postoperative cardiac-related quality of life and postoperative pain after upper hemisternotomy and conventional surgical aortic valve replacement. METHODS: In this single-centre, open-label, investigator-initiated randomized clinical trial, patients were randomized to upper hemisternotomy or conventional full median sternotomy. Patients unable to undergo randomization were monitored prospectively (registry group). Primary outcome was cardiac-specific quality of life, measured with the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire up to 1 year postoperatively. RESULTS: Patients undergoing upper hemisternotomy had a significantly higher physical limitation domain score across all postoperative time points than patients undergoing conventional surgical aortic valve replacement (estimated mean difference 2.12 points; P = 0.014). Patients undergoing upper hemisternotomy were more likely to have a pain score <30 the first 2 days postoperatively than patients undergoing conventional surgical aortic valve replacement (odds ratio 2.63; P = 0.007). This was associated with reduced opioid analgesic intake. Postoperative surgical outcome did not differ between both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical aortic valve replacement through both conventional sternotomy and upper hemisternotomy resulted in clinically similar and important improvements in quality of life, with a small advantage for upper hemisternotomy, while there was no compromise in safety.