Proximal Reoperation Research Articles

Composite aortic root replacement in acute type A dissection: time to rethink the indications?

The indications for aortic root replacement in acute type A dissection are unclear. We reviewed the immediate and long-term outcome of consecutive patients in a series in which a low-threshold policy of composite aortic root replacement had evolved. From a prospectively compiled aortic surgery database, we identified 162 patients who had either supracoronary interposition grafting, Group A (n=89), or composite root replacement, Group B (n=73) for acute type A dissection. Patients receiving total arch replacements were excluded. Operative and clinical details were analyzed and patient survival was compared to an age and gender matched census cohort. Need for reoperation on the proximal or distal aorta was also noted. Follow-up totaled 795.5 patient-years. Hospital mortality rates were identical in both groups (12.3%: 11 deaths in group A; 9 in group B). Chronic pulmonary disease, diabetes, malperfusion, hemodynamic compromise and aortic root dilatation were independent risk factors for hospital death. Actuarial survival estimates at 1, 5 and 10 years were 79% (71-88%), 64% (53-75%), and 55% (41-68%) for group A, and 79% (70-86%), 73% (62-83%), and 65% (52-78%) for group B (P=0.48). Age and operative patency of the ascending false lumen were independent risk factors for death after hospital discharge. Proximal aortic reoperation was required for four patients in group A and none in group B (P=0.085). A strategy of replacement rather than repair of the dissected aortic root for specific indications in type A dissection yielded high survival and low proximal reoperation rates. These results support an aggressive policy of composite root replacement in acute type A dissection.

Acute type a aortic dissection complicated by aortic regurgitation: composite valve graft versus separate valve graft versus conservative valve repair

Objective To clarify the merits of various surgical approaches, we studied the outcome after composite valve graft versus separate valve and graft replacement versus conservative valve treatment with replacement of the ascending aorta in patients with acute type A aortic dissection complicated by aortic regurgitation. Methods Between 1967 and 1999, 123 patients (mean age 56 ± 15 years) underwent composite valve graft replacement (n = 21), separate valve and graft replacement (n = 20), or conservative valve treatment (n = 82 [commissural resuspension in 46]); follow-up averaged 6.5 years (95% complete). Results The 30-day, 1-year, and 6-year survival estimates of 85% ± 4%, 79% ± 5%, and 69% ± 5% (±1 standard error of mean), respectively, after conservative valve treatment were similar to 86% ± 8%, 81% ± 9%, and 65% ± 16%, respectively, with composite valve graft replacement and better (but insignificantly so) than 70% ± 10%, 70% ± 10%, and 45% ± 11%, respectively, with separate valve and graft replacement. The 6-year freedom from proximal reoperation was 95% ± 3%, 89% ± 10%, and 100% in conservative valve graft, separate valve and graft, and composite valve graft subgroups, respectively ( P = not significant). Cox regression multivariable analysis identified that previous sternotomy (hazard ratio [or e β ] 95% confidence interval 1.4-10.9, P = .006), hypertension (0.99-2.9, P = .05), cardiac tamponade (1.1-4.0, P = .03), and stroke (1.7-7.0, P = .001) increased the hazard of death. No factors predicting a higher likelihood of late proximal reoperation were identified. Conclusions In patients with acute type A aortic dissection and aortic regurgitation, there was no significant difference in overall survival or reoperation rates among these surgical approaches. We try to save the valve whenever possible unless the aortic root is pathologically dilated (eg, Marfan syndrome or annuloaortic ectasia) or destroyed by the dissection process, when composite valve graft or valve-sparing aortic root replacement is indicated.

Mid-Term Results of Aortic Valve Preservation: Remodelling vs. Reimplantation

Valve-preserving root replacement has become an accepted alternative to composite replacement both in dissection and in aneurysmal disease. We retrospectively analysed 5-year results comparing root remodelling and reimplantation procedures. From October 1995 to January 2001, 119 patients underwent either root remodelling (group A; n = 98; age: 61 +/- 14 years) or valve reimplantation within a vascular graft (group B; n = 21; age: 47 +/- 17 years). In group A, 26 patients were operated for aortic dissection type A and 72 for aortic valve regurgitation and aneurysmal disease. In group B, 8 patients were operated for aortic dissection type A, 13 for aortic valve regurgitation and aneurysm. Concomitant arch surgery was performed in 65 patients (group A: 57; group B: 8). Time on cardiopulmonary bypass was 121 +/- 30 min in group A, 143 +/- 24 min in group B, and aortic cross-clamp time was 87 +/- 19 min in group A and 113 +/- 24 min in group B. Average duration was therefore longer in group B (p = n.s.) Hospital mortality was 3.1 % in group A and 0 % in group B. Following elective procedures, hospital mortality was 1.1 % in group A. Freedom from aortic regurgitation over grade 2 at 4 years was 86 % in group A and 94.7 % in group B. At 4 years, freedom from proximal reoperation was 97.8 % in group A and 100 % in group B. There was no deterioration of valve function or need for reoperation observed after 1 year in either group. Five-year results are comparable and encouraging for remodelling and reimplantation procedures. If the initial valve function and geometry is adequate, the chance of secondary failure beyond the first year is minimal.

Risk factor analysis for proximal and distal reoperations after surgery for acute type A aortic dissection

Objective: This study was undertaken to determine significant risk factors for proximal or distal reoperations after surgical correction of acute type A aortic dissection. Methods: Between 1980 and 2000, a total of 160 consecutive patients (mean age 57.5 ± 13.3 years, 126 men) underwent surgery for acute type A aortic dissection. Proximal repair was performed by means of ascending aorta replacement with valve resuspension in 130 cases (81.3%), composite graft replacement in 19 cases (11.9%), separate aortic valve and ascending aorta replacement in 7 cases (4.4%), and aortic repair in 1 case (0.6%). Distal repair required arch replacement in 23 cases. Follow-up time averaged 4.51 ± 5.6 years per patient. Results: Survival estimates after initial operation were 66.1% ± 3.8%, 57.7% ± 4.2%, 52.2% ± 4.6%, and 42.5% ± 5.8% at 1, 5, 10, and 15 years, respectively. Thirty patients required 37 reoperations at a mean interval of 5.7 ± 4.5 years after the initial operation. Freedoms from reoperation were 96.9% ± 1.8%, 74.7% ± 5.3%, 60.8% ± 6.8%, and 39.3% ± 9.1% at 1, 5, 10, and 15 years, respectively. Reoperations included procedures on the proximal aorta (aortic root or valve) in 21 cases and on the distal aorta or its side branches in 19 cases. Cox regression analysis distinguished severe preoperative aortic valve insufficiency as the only significant risk factors for proximal reoperation; younger patient age, more distal extent of dissection, and more recent operative date were found to be significant risk factors for distal reoperation. Conclusion: Patients with acute type A aortic dissection who have severe aortic valve insufficiency are at increased risk for proximal reoperation. These patients should benefit from a more aggressive proximal repair at initial operation. Distal extent of aortic resection at initial operation did not significantly influence the risk of distal reoperation.

Valve-preserving operation in acute aortic dissection type A

Background. The standard treatment in patients with acute aortic dissection type A (AADA) and aortic regurgitation is either supracommissural aortic or composite replacement of ascending aorta and valve. Valve-preserving surgical procedures provide a promising alternative. We retrospectively analyzed midterm results after these different approaches. Methods. From October 1995 to December 1999, 52 patients (35 men, 17 women) underwent repair of AADA. Patient ages ranged from 30 to 83 years. Composite replacement was chosen for degenerated aortic valves or prior valve replacement (group A; n = 8). With normal root diameter, supracommissural replacement of the ascending aorta was performed (group B; n = 22). For preexisting root dilatation the aortic root was either remodeled (root diameter 30 to 50 mm, group C; n = 17) or the valve reimplanted within a vascular graft (root diameter more than 50 mm, group D; n = 5). Results. All patients underwent either proximal (n = 46) or total (n = 6) arch replacement under circulatory arrest. Eight patients (15.4%) died (group A: n = 3; group B: n = 3; group C: n = 2). Freedom from aortic regurgitation of grade 2 or more at 2 years was 100% in groups A and D, 90.9% in group C, and 75% following supracommissural replacement. At 2 years freedom from proximal reoperation was 100% in groups A, C, and D and 84.5% in group B. Conclusions. In AADA valve-preserving root replacement leads to improved stability of aortic valve function without an increased operative risk. Midterm results are promising and may show further superiority over supracommissural aortic replacement in the future.