Aortic root allograft reoperations

Abstract

ObjectiveTo investigate outcomes after aortic root allograft reoperation, identify risk factors for morbidity and mortality, and describe practice evolution since publication of our 2006 allograft reoperation study. MethodsFrom January 1987 to July 2020, 602 patients underwent 632 allograft-related reoperations at Cleveland Clinic: 144 before 2006 (early era, which suggested radical explant was superior to aortic-valve-replacement-within-allograft [AVR-only]), and 488 from 2006 to present (recent era). Indications for reoperation were structural valve deterioration in 502 (79%), infective endocarditis in 90 (14%), and nonstructural valve deterioration/noninfective endocarditis in 40 (6.3%). Reoperative techniques included radical allograft explant in 372 (59%), AVR-only in 248 (39%), and allograft preservation in 12 (1.9%). Perioperative events and survival were assessed among indications, techniques, and eras. ResultsOperative mortality by indication was 2.2% (n = 11) for structural valve deterioration, 7.8% (n = 7) in those with infective endocarditis, and 7.5% (n = 3) for nonstructural valve deterioration/noninfective endocarditis, and by surgical approach 2.4% (n = 9) after radical explant, 4.0% (n = 10) for AVR-only, and 17% (n = 2) for allograft preservation. Operative adverse events occurred in 4.9% (n = 18) of radical explants and 2.8% (n = 7) of AVR-only procedures (P = .2). Patients undergoing radical explants received larger valves than those undergoing AVR-only (median, 25 vs 23 mm). ConclusionsAortic root allograft reoperations present a technical challenge but can be performed with low mortality and morbidity. Radical explant offers outcomes similar to AVR-only while allowing for implant of larger prostheses. Increasing experience with allograft reoperations has permitted excellent outcomes; thus, risk of reoperation should not dissuade surgeons from using allografts for invasive aortic valve infective endocarditis and other indications.