Minimal access aortic valve replacement: effects on morbidity and resource utilization.

Background: The aim of this study was to compare outcomes in patients undergoing minimal access versus conventional aortic valve replacement (AVR).

Methods: We reviewed prospectively gathered data on all patients who were undergoing first-time AVR, with or without replacement of the ascending aorta, over a 1-year period at our institution.

Results: A total of 176 patients underwent minimal access and 258 underwent conventional AVR.