Background: Few longitudinal data exist comparing quality of life (QoL) after full sternotomy (fs) aortic valve replacement (AVR) (fsAVR) with ministernotomy AVR (msAVR). Methods: A total of 1844 consecutive patients undergoing AVR who were prospectively enrolled in a European multicenter registry were dichotomized according to surgical access. Nonparsimonious propensity score matching selected 187 pairs of patients who underwent fsAVR or msAVR with comparable baseline characteristics. Hospital outcome was compared in the 2 groups. QoL was assessed with the Short Form-36, further detailed in its Physical Component Summary (PCS) score and the Mental Component Summary (MCS) score. QoL was investigated at hospital admission, at discharge, and at 1 month, 6 months, and 1 year thereafter. Results: There were 1654 patients undergoing fsAVR and 190 undergoing msAVR in the entire population. The fsAVR group showed a worse preoperative risk profile, a longer intensive care unit length of stay (59.7 hours vs 38.8 hours; p = .002), and a higher rate of life-threatening or disabling bleeding (4.1% vs 0%; P = .011); the msAVR group had a higher rate of early reintervention for failed index intervention (2.1% vs 0.5%; P = .001). QoL investigations showed better PCS and MCS at 1 month after fsAVR, but no temporal trend differences (PCS group-time P = .202; MCS group-time P = .141). Propensity-matched pairs showed comparable baseline characteristics and hospital outcomes (P = not significant for all end points) and comparable improvements of PCS and MCS over time, but no between-group differences over time (PCS group time P = .834; MCS group time P = .737). Conclusions: Patients with similar baseline profiles report comparable hospital outcomes and comparable improvements of physical and mental health, up to 1 year after surgery, with both fsAVR and msAVR. As for QoL, ministernotomy does not seem to offer any advantage compared with the traditional approach.
