Effect of Aortic Valve Type on Patients Who Undergo Type A Aortic Dissection Repair

Abstract

Aortic valve replacement (AVR) is common in the setting of type A aortic dissection (TAAD) repair. Here, we evaluated the association between prosthesis choice and patient outcomes in an international patient cohort. We reviewed data from the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection (IRAD) interventional cohort to examine the relationship between valve choice and short- and mid-term patient outcomes. Between January 1996 and March 2016, 1290 surgically treated patients with TAAD were entered into the IRAD interventional cohort. Of those, 364 patients undergoing TAAD repair underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR; mean age, 57 years). The mechanical valve cohort consisted of 189 patients, of which 151 (79.9%) had a root replacement. The nonmechanical valve cohort consisted of 5 patients who received homografts and 160 patients who received a biologic AVR, with a total of 118 (71.5%) patients who underwent root replacements. The mean follow-up time was 2.92 ± 1.75 years overall (2.46 ± 1.69 years for the mechanical valve cohort and 3.48 ± 1.8 years for the nonmechanical valve cohort). After propensity matching, Kaplan-Meier estimates of 4-year survival rates after surgery were 64.8% in the mechanical valve group compared with 74.7% in the nonmechanical valve group (p = 0.921). A stratified Cox model for 4-year mortality showed no difference in hazard between valve types after adjusting for the propensity score (p = 0.854). A biologic valve is a reasonable option in patients with TAAD who require AVR. Although this option avoids the potential risks of anticoagulation, long-term follow up is necessary to assess the effect of reoperations or transcatheter interventions for structural valve degeneration.