Abstract Background Minimally invasive approaches to isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR) are well‐described and widely utilized. While there are numerous proposed benefits, there is limited literature describing significant morbidity or mortality benefits for minimally invasive isolated AVR resulting in hesitancy in its universal adoption. In this retrospective study, we compare the 5‐year outcomes of patients undergoing isolated AVR via full sternotomy (FS) or mini‐sternotomy (MS). Methods 756 patients underwent isolated AVR between 2014 and 2019. Propensity matching resulted in 142 matched pairs that received either FS or MS. The primary outcome was mortality during the follow‐up period. Secondary outcomes included intraoperative variables and postoperative morbidity. Results Intraoperative variables including total operative, cardiopulmonary bypass, and aortic cross‐clamp times did not differ significantly between groups. Postoperative mortality was similar between the matched groups with nonsignificant differences at 30 days (2.12 vs. 1.4, p?=?.657), 1 year (4.9 vs. 2.1, p?=?.0.223), and 5 years (7.5 vs. 3.5, p?=?.174). Rates of postoperative morbidity were comparable between groups with no significant differences. Conclusion This study examined the long‐term outcomes of propensity‐matched patients undergoing isolated AVR via FS or MS and identified no significant differences in outcomes over a 5‐year?follow‐up period. The decision for surgical approach is multifactorial and should be decided on a case‐by‐case basis taking into consideration patient anatomy, surgeon experience, and comfort, as well as patient preference.
展开▼
