Midterm follow-up of composite graft replacement of the aortic root (30-year experience)—remarkably safe, effective, and durable

Abstract

ObjectivesContemporary operative choices for aortic root disease include aortic root replacement (ARR) and a variety of valve-sparing and aortic root-repair procedures. We evaluate ultra-long-term outcomes of ARR, focusing on survival, freedom from late reoperation, and adverse events. MethodsProspectively kept records were used to accomplish long-term follow-up of patients who underwent ARR (4-pronged Yale survival assessment paradigm). ResultsBetween 1990 and 2020, 564 patients underwent ARR (mean 56 years, 84% male). A modified Cabrol procedure (Dacron coronary graft) was employed in 9.0% (51/564) and concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting in 9.4% (53/564). There were 12.8% (72/564) urgent/emergent and 7.4% (42/564) redo procedures. Operative mortality occurred in 12 patients (2.1%) overall, or 1.4% (8/554) of nondissection and 1.3% (6/468) of elective first-time operations. Six of the 12 deaths presented with acute type A dissection, urgent operation, or reoperative states. Operative mortality dropped to 0.6% during the past 10 years. In total, 11 patients developed endocarditis. Stroke occurred in 11 of 564 patients (2.0%), 4 of whom had presented with type A dissection. Late events included bleeding in 2.8% (16/564), thromboembolism in 1.4% (8/564), and reoperation of the root in 5 of 564 (0.9%) at 15 years and more distal aortic segments in 16/564 (2.8%). Survival was no different from age/sex-matched controls. ConclusionsThis ultra-long-term experience finds ARR to be extraordinarily safe, effective, and durable, with minimal long-term bleeding, thromboembolism, or graft failure. This experience provides a standard of durability for ARR against which ultra-long-term outcomes with alternate procedures (valve-sparing, Ross, other) may be compared.