Root Replacement Group Research Articles

Aortic root replacement for bicuspid aortic valve dysfunction does not impair survival rates

BackgroundPatients with a bicuspid aortic valve carry an increased risk for developing an ascending aortic aneurysm due to intrinsic aortic wall alterations. A lower threshold for aortic surgery may therefore be considered in these patients, especially in those who require aortic valve surgery. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of an isolated aortic valve replacement with that of an aortic root replacement in bicuspid aortic valve patients with an indication for aortic valve surgery.MethodsPatients were included in retrospect from a tertiary academic hospital. Included patients received an elective aortic valve (AVR) or a composite valve-graft conduit (both mechanical and biological) between 2006 and 2021 without any concomitant procedure. Mortality data were retrieved from a national database and comparisons, including survival analyses, were performed between both groups.ResultsA total of 132 isolated AVR and 149 aortic root replacements were included. Patients who received an isolated AVR were significantly older than the aortic root replacement group (62.9 vs. 57.7 year respectively, p < 0.001). Survival analyses showed a comparable long-term mortality between both groups (8.1% vs. 9.1%, p = 0.321).ConclusionThis study shows that performing an aortic root replacement with a composite valve-graft conduit in bicuspid aortic valve patients does not impair the survival outcomes. In the light of preventing potential future aortic complications within this patient group with a congenitally and structurally weakened aortic wall, a more aggressive approach towards the treatment of BAV aortopathy might be considered.

Elective root replacement increases the risk of type B dissection in patients with Marfan syndrome

ObjectiveMarfan syndrome is a genetic disorder with increased risk of aortic dissection. Currently, type A aortic dissection risk is mitigated by aortic root replacement with Dacron. It is unclear if root replacement increases the risk of distal aortic disease given the noncompliant nature of Dacron. MethodsAll adult patients with a diagnosis of Marfan syndrome at a single academic center, excluding those with history of dissection or concomitant arch repair, were studied (n = 322). Student t test or Wilcoxon Mann–Whitney test was used for continuous variables; chi-square or Fisher exact test was used for categorical variables. Propensity matching used age, sex, hypertension, race, body mass index, family history of Marfan syndrome, and genetic mutational class. Differences in freedom from type B aortic dissection were determined using the log-rank test. ResultsA total of 124 patients underwent root replacement compared with 198 patients with no prior aortic surgery. Median follow-up time was 9.90 years. Male sex, weight, and hypertension prevalence were higher in the root replacement group (P < .05). Distribution of fibrillin-1 mutations was homogenous (P > .9). Type B aortic dissection frequency in the root replacement group was higher (21% [n = 20] vs 4.2% [n = 4], P < .001). Aortic-related mortality was higher in the root replacement group (11% [n = 14] vs 3.5% [n = 7], P < .01). Distal aortic intervention frequency was higher in the root replacement group (P = .009). ConclusionsPatients with Marfan syndrome who undergo elective aortic root replacement appear to have a higher incidence of subsequent type B aortic dissection, independent of other risk factors. Careful consideration must be made to the management of the distal aorta in patients with Marfan syndrome who undergo root replacement.

Aortic root reinforcement combined with vascular rafts eversion and built-in procedure for Acute Type A Aortic dissection surgery

Abstract Background Acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) is a life-threatening disease with high mortality. Surgery remains the gold standard for the treatment of ATAAD. However, ATAAD surgery, especially the aortic root reinforcement technique, is still a challenge for surgeons. Methods All Stanford type A aortic dissection patients undergoing surgery in our hospital from January 2020 to December 2021 were retrospectively entrolled. These patients were divided into three groups according to the surgical procedures of aortic rot: continuous aortic root suture group (CARS group); "intermittent mattress type built-in skirt forming method" group, which was created by our group (XJ-procedure group), aortic root replacement group (Bentall group). The primary outcomes were 30-day mortality and incidence of recurrent dissection of aortic root (before dis-charge, 3 and 6 months of follow-up). The secondly outcomes were the rate of reoperation for aortic root bleeding, the incidence of pseudoaneurysms and the severe aortic valve regurgitation (the residual aortic valve regurgitation greater than grade 2+) rate before discharge, 3 and 6 months of follow-up. Results A total of 221 patients were entrolled in this study, including 69, 114 and 38 in CARS group, XJ-procedure group and Bentall group, respectively. The total operation time in the CARS group, XJ-procedure group and Bentall group were 391.74±74.05 minutes, 371.59±79.36minutes and 427.76±100.78 minutes, respectively (P=0.001, Pa=0.108, Pb=0.001). The overall 30-day mortality rate was 6.8% (15/221), 7.2% (5/69), 7.0% (8/114) and 5.3% (2/38) for all patients, CARS group, XJ-procedure group and Bentall group, respectively. In the CARS group, the incidence of recurrent dissection of aortic root was much lower in the XJ-procedure group than the CARS group before discharge (1.8% versus 10.6%), 3 months (9.4% versus 0%) and 6 months (7.8% vs 0%) follow-up, respectively. The rates of reoperation for aortic root bleeding in the CARS group, XJ-procedure group and Bentall group were 4.3%, 0.9%, and 2.6%, respectively (P=0.306, Pa=0.151, Pb=0.439). In the CARS group, the incidence of pseudoaneurysm was 3.0%,3,1%,3.0% before discharge, at 3 months and 6 months follow-up. In the XJ-procedure group, there was no reported pseudoaneurysm. The residual severe aortic valve regurgitation incidence was much lower in the XJ-procedure group than the CARS group at 3 months (0.9% versus 4.7%) and 6 months (0.9% versus 4.7%) follow-up, respectively. Compared with the traditional procedure, the XJ-procedure does not increase the perioperative mortality and reduces the incidence of aortic root complications. Conclusion XJ-procedure is a safe and effective aortic root reinforcement technique for ATAAD surgery and reduces aortic root complications by reinforcing the fragile aortic root tissue.

The impact of reoperative surgery on aortic root replacement in the United States

ObjectiveReoperative sternotomy is associated with poor outcomes after cardiac surgery. We aimed to investigate the impact of reoperative sternotomy on the outcomes after aortic root replacement. MethodsAll patients who underwent aortic root replacement from January 2011 to June 2020 were identified using the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database. We compared outcomes between patients who underwent first-time aortic root replacement with those with a history of sternotomy undergoing reoperative sternotomy aortic root replacement using propensity score matching. Subgroup analysis was performed among the reoperative sternotomy aortic root replacement group. ResultsA total of 56,447 patients underwent aortic root replacement. Among them, 14,935 (26.5%) underwent reoperative sternotomy aortic root replacement. The annual incidence of reoperative sternotomy aortic root replacement increased from 542 in 2011 to 2300 in 2019. Aneurysm and dissection were more frequently observed in the first-time aortic root replacement group, whereas infective endocarditis was more common in the reoperative sternotomy aortic root replacement group. Propensity score matching yielded 9568 pairs in each group. Cardiopulmonary bypass time was longer in the reoperative sternotomy aortic root replacement group (215 vs 179 minutes, standardized mean difference = 0.43). Operative mortality was higher in the reoperative sternotomy aortic root replacement group (10.8% vs 6.2%, standardized mean difference = 0.17). In the subgroup analysis, logistic regression demonstrated that individual patient repetition of (second or more resternotomy) surgery and annual institutional volume of aortic root replacement were independently associated with operative mortality. ConclusionsThe incidence of reoperative sternotomy aortic root replacement might have increased over time. Reoperative sternotomy is a significant risk factor for morbidity and mortality in aortic root replacement. Referral to high-volume aortic centers should be considered in patients undergoing reoperative sternotomy aortic root replacement.

Concomitant aortic root replacement during frozen elephant trunk implantation does not increase perioperative risk.

Our aim was to evaluate the risk of concomitant aortic root replacement during frozen elephant trunk (FET) total arch replacement. Between March 2013 and February 2021, 303 patients underwent aortic arch replacement using the FET technique. Patient characteristics, intra- and postoperative data were compared between patients with (n = 50) and without (n = 253) concomitant aortic root replacement (implantation of a valved conduit or using the reimplantation valve-sparing technique) after propensity score matching. After propensity score matching, there were no statistically significant differences in preoperative characteristics including the underlying pathology. There was no statistically significant difference regarding arterial inflow-cannulation or concomitant cardiac procedures, while cardiopulmonary bypass (P < 0.001) and aortic cross-clamp (P < 0.001) times were significantly longer in the root replacement group. Postoperative outcome was similar between the groups and there were no proximal reoperations in the root replacement group during follow-up. Root replacement was not predictive for mortality (P = 0.133, odds ratio: 0.291) in our Cox regression model. There was no statistically significant difference in overall survival (log rank: P = 0.062). Concomitant FET implantation and aortic root replacement prolongs operative times but does not influence postoperative outcomes or increase operative risk in an experienced high-volume centre. The FET procedure did not appear to be a contraindication for concomitant aortic root replacement even in patients with borderline indications for aortic root replacement.

Long-term outcomes after ascending aortic replacement and aortic root replacement for type A aortic dissection.

OBJECTIVESWe investigated whether the selective use of supracoronary ascending aorta replacement achieves late outcomes comparable to those of aortic root replacement for acute Stanford type A aortic dissection (TAAD).METHODSPatients who underwent surgery for acute type A aortic dissection from 2005 to 2018 at the Helsinki University Hospital, Finland, were included in this analysis. Late mortality was evaluated with the Kaplan–Meier method and proximal aortic reoperation, i.e. operation on the aortic root or aortic valve, with the competing risk method.RESULTSOut of 309 patients, 216 underwent supracoronary ascending aortic replacement and 93 had aortic root replacement. At 10 years, mortality was 33.8% after aortic root replacement and 35.2% after ascending aortic replacement (P = 0.806, adjusted hazard ratio 1.25, 95% confidence interval, 0.77–2.02), and the cumulative incidence of proximal aortic reoperation was 6.0% in the aortic root replacement group and 6.2% in the ascending aortic replacement group (P = 0.65; adjusted subdistributional hazard ratio 0.53, 95% confidence interval 0.15–1.89). Among 71 propensity score matched pairs, 10-year survival was 34.4% after aortic root replacement and 36.2% after ascending aortic replacement surgery (P = 0.70). Cumulative incidence of proximal aortic reoperation was 7.0% after aortic root replacement and 13.0% after ascending aortic replacement surgery (P = 0.22). Among 102 patients with complete imaging data [mean follow-up, 4.7 (3.2) years], the estimated growth rate of the aortic root diameter was 0.22 mm/year, that of its area 7.19 mm2/year and that of its perimeter 0.43 mm/year.CONCLUSIONSWhen stringent selection criteria were used to determine the extent of proximal aortic reconstruction, aortic root replacement and ascending aortic replacement for type A aortic dissection achieved comparable clinical outcomes.

Long-term mortality in patients with infective endocarditis who undergo aortic root replacement versus isolated aortic valve replacement

Abstract Background Infective endocarditis (IE) with involvement of the aortic root (root abscess or aortic prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE)) is associated with high mortality and morbidity, and it often requires root replacement. IE-guidelines recommend surgery in patients with aortic root involvement (class B recommendation), but the surgical technique is challenging, and the perioperative risk is high. Long-term data are sparse for these high-risk patients and may help better select appropriate patients for surgery. Purpose We set out to investigate the short- and long-term mortality for patients with destructive aortic valve endocarditis who underwent aortic root replacement. For comparison, we included those who underwent isolated aortic valve replacement for IE (isolated AVR). Methods We included patients with first-time IE from 2000 to 2016 who underwent aortic valve surgery identified from The Eastern Danish Thoracic surgery database. Patient characteristics were identified by cross-linking Danish nationwide databases. Patients who underwent aortic root replacement were compared with those who underwent isolated AVR. Kaplan-Meier plots and multivariable Cox regression analyses were used to estimate and compare the associated 30-days and 10-year mortality risks between groups. Results We included 368 patients with aortic valve IE who underwent AVR surgery; 126 patients underwent aortic root replacement and 242 underwent isolated AVR. Median age for root replacement patients was 65.4 years (interquartile range [IQR] 56.2–73.0) compared with 62.1 years (IQR 52.3–71.6) for isolated AVR patients. In the root replacement group, 40.5% had prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE), whereas 6.6% had PVE in the isolated AVR group. 30-day mortality was 12.7% (CI95: 7.6%-19.2%) in the root replacement group and 7.0% (CI95: 4.3%-10.7%) in the isolated AVR group (P=0.06). Estimated 10-year mortality was 54.4% (CI95: 40.3%-67.6%) in the root replacement group and 45.3% (CI95: 35.7%-54.5%) (P=0.07) after isolated AVR (figure 1). At up to 10 years follow-up, there was no significant difference in adjusted mortality between the groups, adjusted HR=1.34 (CI 95: 0.90–2.00). Conclusion Patients with IE who underwent aortic root replacement surgery more often had a prosthetic heart valve, were older, and were more often male. There was no significant difference in long-term mortality between the groups. Nonetheless, long-term mortality was high – 50% of patients died by 10 years, and our results underline the need for stringent patient selection. Figure 1 Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None

The fate of residual aortic regurgitation after ascending aorta replacement in type A aortic dissection

ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the changes in postoperative aortic regurgitation (AR) and determine the predictors of significant AR and root reoperation after ascending aortic replacement (AAR) in patients with acute type A aortic dissection. MethodsFrom January 1995 to December 2017, 271 consecutive patients underwent valve/root-preserving AAR (n = 225) and root replacement (n = 46). AR grade trend over time was analyzed by the ordinal mixed-effects model. Significant AR was defined as AR grade ≥3+ during the follow-up period. Predischarge and follow-up echocardiograms were obtained in 95.6% and 88.8% of enrolled patients, respectively. ResultsAt predischarge, postoperative ≥2+ AR was present in 20 (9.3%) and 1 (2.3%) patients in the AAR and root replacement groups, respectively. With increasing time after surgery, the grade of AR increased. At 10 years, 4.6% of patients had developed 3+ or 4+ AR. Considering death as the competing risk, the 10-year cumulative incidence of significant AR was significantly higher in the AAR than in the root replacement group (12.3% vs 2.2%; P = .047). The risk of root reoperation at 10 years was not different between the groups (P = .118). On Cox analysis, preoperative ≥3+ AR (P = .002), postoperative ≥2+ AR (P = .040), and false to true lumen ratio (P = .005) were associated predictors of significant AR. ConclusionsAlthough valve/root-preserving AAR demonstrated reasonable long-term outcomes when compared with root replacement, preoperative ≥3+ AR, postoperative ≥2+ AR, and high false to true lumen ratio significantly increased the risk of significant AR. Therefore, careful echocardiographic surveillance may be warranted in patients with postoperative ≥2+ AR and small true lumen.

Short- and long-term outcomes of aortic root repair and replacement in patients undergoing acute type A aortic dissection repair: Twenty-year experience

ObjectiveThe study objective was to evaluate the perioperative and long-term outcomes of aortic root repair and aortic root replacement and provide evidence for root management in acute type A aortic dissection. MethodsFrom 1996 to 2017, 491 patients underwent aortic root repair (n = 307) or aortic root replacement (n = 184) (62% bioprosthesis) for acute type A aortic dissection. Indications for aortic root replacement were intimal tear at the aortic root, root measuring 4.5 cm or more, connective tissue disease, or unrepairable aortic valvulopathy. Primary outcomes were in-hospital mortality, long-term survival, and reoperation rate for root pathology. ResultsPatients' median age was 61 years and 56 years in the aortic root repair group and aortic root replacement group, respectively. The aortic root replacement group had more renal failure requiring dialysis, previous cardiac intervention or surgery, heart failure, coronary malperfusion syndrome, acute myocardial infarction, and severe aortic insufficiency, as well as concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting, tricuspid valve repair, and longer cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic crossclamp times but similar arch procedures. Perioperative outcomes were similar in the aortic root repair and aortic root replacement groups, including in-hospital mortality (8.5% and 8.2%), new-onset renal failure requiring permanent dialysis, stroke, myocardial infarction, and sepsis. Kaplan–Meier 10-year survival was 62% and 65%, and the 15-year cumulative incidence of reoperation was 11% and 7% in the aortic root repair and aortic root replacement groups, respectively. The primary indication for root reoperation was aortic root aneurysm in the aortic root repair group and bioprosthetic valve deterioration in the aortic root replacement group. ConclusionsAortic root repair and aortic root replacement are appropriate surgical options for acute type A aortic dissection repair with favorable short- and long-term outcomes. Aortic root replacement should be performed for patients with acute type A aortic dissection presenting with an intimal tear at the aortic root, root aneurysm 4.5 cm or greater, connective tissue disease, or unrepairable aortic valvulopathy.

Surgical Outcomes in Behcet’s Disease Patients With Severe Aortic Regurgitation

An optimal treatment for aortic regurgitation in Behcet's disease has not been established. We investigated the effect of operative technique, prosthetic material, and immunomodulation therapy on surgical outcomes. In this study, 23 patients with Behcet's disease surgically treated for aortic regurgitation were assessed. Significant postoperative events were defined as death, aortic valve or graft-related problem(s), infective endocarditis, disabling stroke, and aortic valve or root reoperation. Surgical procedures were classified as isolated aortic valve replacement, bioprosthetic root replacement, and mechanical root replacement. Allograft root replacements were included in the bioprosthetic root replacement group. A total of 40 operations, including 39 aortic valve or root surgeries and 1 orthotopic heart transplantation, were performed on patients confirmed with Behcet's disease. However, the study only reviewed 35 of the 40 cases (4 cases with inadequately documented medical records and 1 heart transplantation case were excluded). Significant adverse events occurred in 8 of 11 (73%) isolated aortic valve replacement, 9 of 12 (75%) bioprosthetic root replacement (5 xenografts and 7 allografts), and 4 of 12 (33%) mechanical root replacement cases. Multivariate analysis revealed that the 1-month postdischarge C-reactive protein level and operative age were independent predictive factors for postoperative event-free survival. Mechanical root replacement was identified as the most significant predictive factor leading to positive outcomes (hazard ratio, 0.147; 95% confidence interval, 0.028 to 0.766; p= 0.023). The findings suggest that mechanical root replacement combined with a low postoperative C-reactive protein level maintained through adjunctive immunomodulation therapy may lead to optimal surgical outcomes in Behcet's disease associated with severe aortic regurgitation.

Valve preserving surgery in patients with bicuspid aortic valve

Bicuspid aortic valve can be associated with clinically important aortic regurgitation and dilatation of ascending aorta. Aortic valve repair seems to be optimal therapeutic option how to avoid valve-related and anticoagulation-related complications. We have analyzed midterm outcomes of patients after bicuspid aortic valve repair. MethodsBetween January 2008 and December 2015, 91 patients (mean age 40.9±12.2) with bicuspid aortic valve (type 0 or 1) underwent valve-sparing surgery for aortic valve insufficiency or aortic aneurysm. Urgent procedures and patients of age more than 65 were not included. The cohort of patients was retrospectively divided into two groups. Forty-nine patients underwent aortic valve-sparing procedure with root replacement (group 1). Forty-two patients underwent aortic valve repair without root replacement (group 2). The mean length of follow-up was 57.5 months. ResultsThere was no death in connection with aortic valve repair during follow up. Three patients from group 2 required in-hospital reoperation for early repair failure. Another seven patients (4 from group 1 and 3 from group 2) were reoperated for recurrent aortic insufficiency during follow-up period. Freedom from aortic valve reoperation at 5 years was 90% in group 1 and 87% in group 2. Freedom from recurrent aortic insufficiency (>2°) at 5 years was 85% in group 1 and 78% in group 2. ConclusionBicuspid aortic valve repair is a safe procedure, which can be performed with acceptable midterm results. Risk of repair failure depends on preoperative valve morphology and choice of repair technique. Repair technique needs to be tailored to the specific anatomy of the valve.

Complex Cusp Repair in Patients Undergoing the David Procedure: Is It Worth It?

Valve-sparing aortic root replacement has already proven its excellent long-term results, with low valve-related complications comparable with conventional aortic valve replacement. The aim of this study was to investigate whether additional expanded cusp repair is an alternative with comparable results. Data of 192 elective patients undergoing valve-sparing aortic root replacement were prospectively recorded: 58 patients (30.2%) received an isolated aortic root replacement (group I, isolated David), and 134 patients (69.8%) received additional cusp repair (group II, complex David), such as plication of the free margin (n=77), decalcification (n= 45), or pericardial patch (n= 39). Cumulative follow-up was 480 patient-years, with a mean of 2.5 ± 1.5 years. Mean age was 60 years, and 76.6% were men. In hospital mortality was 3.4% in group I and 0.0% in group II. Freedom from cardiac death at 5 years (by Kaplan-Meier estimation) was 83% vs 98% (p= 0.058). Freedom from moderate or severe aortic insufficiency at 5years was 100% in group I vs 93% (95% confidence interval, 86% to 97%) in group II (p= 0.110). Seven patients required reoperation for aortic insufficiency or stenosis: repeat repair (n= 3), Ross procedure (n= 2), and biologicical aortic valve replacement (n= 2). Freedom from reoperation at 5 years was 96% (95% confidence interval, 76% to 99%) in group I vs 89% (95% confidence interval, 71% to 96%) in group II (p= 0.305). Overall survival and freedom from reoperation after valve-sparing aortic root replacement, even with additional complex cusp repair, provides excellent midterm results. Low risk of valve-related complications and absence of anticoagulation therapy are distinctive advantages of this complex procedure.

Surgical management of aortic root in type A acute aortic dissection: a propensity-score analysis.

Surgical management of the aortic root in type A acute aortic dissection (TAAAD) is controversial. This study compares short- and long-term outcomes of root replacement (RR) versus conservative root management (CR). Between 1999 and 2014, 296 patients with TAAAD were treated in our department. The mean age was 63.7 years. Of the total, 69% were male. Ten patients (3%) presented with Marfan syndrome or bicuspid aortic valve. RR was performed in 119 (40%) patients, whereas CR in 177 (60%). Pre- and intraoperative data were stratified according to root management, and treatment bias was addressed by propensity-score (PS) analysis. Independent predictors of hospital and long-term mortality and proximal aortic reoperation were identified using multivariable logistic and Cox regression models. Using PS analysis, we obtain two groups of 82 patients. The matched cohort hospital mortality rate was 21% in the CR group and 26% in the RR group (P = 0.45). The unadjusted comparison showed no statistical difference in early and long-term mortality between the groups. This result was confirmed after standard logistic regression and propensity-adjusted logistic regression. Freedom from proximal aortic reintervention was higher in the RR group (at 7 years RR: 96 ± 3% vs CR: 80 ± 6%, log-rank P = 0.02) and remained high in the matched cohort of patients (at 7 years RR: 98 ± 2 vs CR: 86 ± 6, log-rank P = 0.06). Conservative and aggressive root management in acute aortic dissection provided similar results for early and late mortality. Nevertheless, a more extensive root intervention appeared to be protective against aortic reintervention.

Sparing the aortic root in acute aortic dissection type A: risk reduction and restored integrity of the untouched root.

The purpose of the study was to evaluate the operative outcome and the risk of retained proximal aortic tissue following the root-sparing (RS) technique in acute aortic dissection type A (AADA). Between 2002 and 2014, 338 patients underwent repair of AADA; 74% of those were performed with the RS technique and 26% with root replacement (RR). The mean age was 62.4 ± 13.4 years (69% male) in the RS group and 56.1 ± 13.1 years (76% male) in the RR group (P < 0.001). Aortic insufficiency 2+ or higher was present in 35% (RS) and 72% (RR, P < 0.001), and bicuspid morphology in 1% (RS) and 16% (RR, P < 0.001). Cardiopulmonary bypass time and cross-clamp time were significantly lower in the RS group (199 ± 71 vs 274 ± 110 min; 108 ± 46 vs 169 ± 55 min; P < 0.001 each), while no difference was seen with regard to distal operative extent, the use of circulatory arrest and adjunct protection strategies. The postoperative incidence of bleeding (18 vs 34%; P = 0.003), low cardiac output (14 vs 29%; P = 0.002) and sepsis/systemic inflammatory response syndrome (5 vs 12%; P = 0.037) were higher after RR, whereas mortality and survival did not differ between the groups. The aortic root grows at 0.40 ± 0.13 mm/year after AADA and thus, the need for potential reoperation was estimated at greater than 40 years. Freedom from root events after 5 and 10 years of follow-up was 97 and 92% in the RS group, and 100% each in RR group, respectively. Both RS and RR procedures can be performed with an acceptable postoperative outcome and late survival in AADA. The RS approach can safely be performed with excellent results in acute survival and stabilizes the native root for a long period of time.

Aortic root replacement: comparison of clinical outcome between different surgical techniques

To examine the influence of different surgical procedures on clinical outcome in patients undergoing aortic root replacement for ascending aorta aneurysm (AAA) with or without concomitant aortic valve regurgitation (AR). Between 2000 and 2011, a total of 370 patients (mean age 52 ± 17 years) underwent aortic root replacement. Patients were retrospectively assigned to three groups according to the surgical procedures: valve-sparing root replacement (VSRR) (Group A; n = 178), Bentall procedure with a biological conduit (Group B; n = 91) and with a mechanical conduit (Group C; n = 101). All patients were studied with clinical assessment and echocardiography during a mean follow-up time of 4.3 years. Estimated 5-year survival probability rates for Groups A, B and C were 95.2 ± 1.8, 80.9 ± 4.4 and 79.3 ± 4.5%, respectively (P < 0.01; log-rank). Estimated 5-year survival probability rates for patients who had undergone elective operations for Groups A, B and C were 96.1 ± 1.8, 88.9 ± 4.4 and 82.3 ± 4.9%, respectively (P = 0.02; log-rank). Actuarial overall 5-year freedom from valve-related reoperations was 94.3 ± 1.9%, without being significantly different between groups (P = 0.13; log-rank). Estimated 5-year probability rates for freedom from major bleeding events for Groups A, B and C were 99.3 ± 0.7, 100 and 93.0 ± 3.4%, respectively (P = 0.03; log-rank). Actuarial overall 5-year freedom from thromboembolism and endocarditis were 93.6 ± 0.2% (P = 0.53; log-rank) and 96.1 ± 1.5% (P = 0.46; log-rank), respectively, without significant differences between groups. The data from the present study support the VSRR strategy in patients undergoing aortic root replacement. Furthermore, if Bentall operation is unavoidable, biological valved conduit should be preferred in order to avoid late bleeding complications.

Methods and results of surgical treatment for aortic root pathology due to Stanford A aortic dissection

To investigate the effectiveness of surgical approaches, outcomes and prognosis of aortic root pathology due to Stanford A aortic dissection. Retrospective analysis the clinical data of 161 patients (122 male and 39 female, mean age of (44 ± 21) years) underwent surgical treatment for Stanford A aortic dissection between January 2001 and June 2011. There were 146 patients of acute aortic dissection and 15 patients of chronic aortic dissection. All the patients had aortic root pathologies that included commissural prolapsed in 140 cases, more than moderate aortic insufficiency in 75 cases, aortic sinus intima rupture in 15 cases, right and/or left coronary artery tearing in 8 cases, right and/or left coronary artery dissection in 16 cases, aortic root aneurysm in 31 cases. Aortic root replacement (Bentall procedures) were used in 72 cases, aortic root remodeling (including aortic valve replacement) in 80 cases, aortic root reimplantation (David procedure) in 9 cases. The cardiopulmonary bypass time was shorter in aortic root remodeling group ((193 ± 42) minutes) than the other two groups ((210 ± 61) minutes, (197 ± 34) minutes, F = 3.22, P = 0.04). The in-hospital mortality was 8.1% (13 cases), 5 cases (6.9%) in aortic root replacement group, 7 cases (8.8%) in aortic root remodeling group, 1 case in aortic root reimplantation. The cause of death included respiratory failure (4 cases), permanent neurological deficits (3 cases), multiple organ failure (4 cases), acute renal failure (2 cases). The survivors were followed up for 6 months to 6 years. There was no patient required reoperation for aortic root pathologies. There was no statistically significant difference between aortic root remodeling group and reimplantation group (P > 0.05). The surgical treatment for aortic root pathology due to Stanford A aortic dissection is challenging. Appropriate procedures according to the specialty of aortic root pathology can be performed with favorable functional results.

Repair of Congenitally Dysplastic Aortic Valve by Bicuspidization: Midterm Results

Repair of congenital aortic valve (CAV) lesions may be achieved by creation of either tricuspid or bicuspid valve morphology. To define feasibility and outcome of CAV repair by bicuspidization a 10-year experience was reviewed. Between January 2002 and December 2011, 147 consecutive patients underwent operation for CAV insufficiency; 58 had valve or root repair (group 1) and 89 had valve or root replacement (group 2). Patients having repair were younger (42.9 vs 51.3 years, p=0.001), with lesser prevalence of severe insufficiency (72% vs 90%, p=0.002). In patients having repair, morphology of CAV was bicuspid in 51, monocuspid in 4, and quadricuspid in 3, whereas in the replacement group it was bicuspid in 87 and quadricuspid in 2 (p=0.04). Surgery consisted of an isolated aortic valve procedure in 20 versus 45 patients, associated with aortic root or ascending aortic repair in 38 versus 44 patients, in group 1 versus 2 (p=0.04). There were no hospital and 3 late deaths during a mean follow-up of 3.8±2.5 years (range 0.2 to 10.0). Eight-year survival (89%±10% vs 97%±2% [p=0.7]), freedom from valve-related events (84%±10% vs 89%±4% [p=0.8]), and freedom from aortic valve reoperation (95%±3% vs 93%±3% [p=0.6]) were comparable. Risk factors for reoperation at univariate analysis were isolated valve surgery (p=0.001), Ross operation (p=0.001), and endocarditis (p=0.002). Follow-up echocardiography of repair patients showed mild or less aortic insufficiency in 51 (88%) and mild or less stenosis in 57 (98%). Valve repair by preservation or creation of bicuspid morphology is feasible in almost half of all comers with CAV insufficiency, with satisfactory and stable midterm functional outcome. Rates of valve-related adverse events and reoperation are similar to those of patients having replacement.

Reoperative Aortic Root Replacement in Patients With Previous Aortic Surgery

Reoperative aortic root reconstruction is increasingly performed and remains a clinical challenge. The aim of this study is to evaluate the outcome of patients undergoing reoperative aortic root replacement after previous aortic surgery. From 1995 to 2006, 156 consecutive patients underwent reoperative aortic root replacement after previous aortic valve replacement (group 1, n = 106, 67.8%), proximal aortic reconstruction (group 2, n = 25, 16.1%), and aortic root replacement (group 3, n = 25, 16.1%). Their records were retrospectively reviewed. The mean age was 58.1 +/- 14.4 years, and 73.7% (n = 115) were men. Reoperation was performed 98.4 months after previous operation, with 14.7% (n = 23) having undergone three or more sternotomies. Indications for reoperations were endocarditis in 55 (35.3%), prosthetic valve dysfunction in 28 (17.9%), paravalvular leak in 12 (7.7%), aortic aneurysm or pseudoaneurysm in 29 (18.5%), aortic dissection in 12 (7.7%), and aortic stenosis or insufficiency in 20 (12.9%). Aortic root replacement was performed in all 156 patients, with concomitant hemiarch reconstruction in 62 (39.7%), Cabrol coronary reconstruction in 5 (3.2%), coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in 26 (16.6%), and mitral valve repair or replacement (MVR) in 25 (16.0%). Thirty-day mortality was 11.5% (n = 18). Actuarial survival was 86.4% +/- 2.7% at 1 year, 72.6% +/- 4.3% at 5 years, and 58.4% +/- 7.8% at 10 years. Subgroup analysis demonstrated no difference in 30-day mortality (group 1, 14.1%; group 2, 8.0%; group 3, 4.0%; p = 0.31) and late survival between the three groups (p = 0.14). Multivariate analysis demonstrated age older than 75 years (p = 0.03) and New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class IV (p = 0.05) as risk factors for 30-day mortality. Reoperative aortic root reconstruction can be performed with a low perioperative mortality rate and satisfactory long-term survival. Age older than 75 years and NYHA class IV are risk factors for early mortality. Previous aortic root replacement is not a risk factor for reoperative aortic root reconstruction.

Homograft Implantation Techniques in the Aortic Position: To Preserve or Replace the Aortic Root?

One determinant of durability of the homograft in the aortic position is the implantation technique. This study uses meta-analytical techniques to evaluate the differences in early and long-term outcomes of patients undergoing aortic homograft implantation with either a root replacement or a root preserving technique. A systematic review of the literature (1965-2005) reporting results after homograft implantation in the aortic position with emphasis in the implantation technique was performed. Random and fixed-effects models were used. Cumulative and influential meta-analysis, graphic exploration, and sensitivity analysis were carried out to explain the heterogeneity between studies and to investigate potential publication bias. Eleven studies were included. None of the studies was randomized. There was no significant difference in early mortality between root replacement and root preserving groups (odds ratio = 2.57 with 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.68-9.72 in random-effects model) and the root replacement group had a significantly lower rate of reoperation during long-term follow-up (hazard ratio = 0.55 with 95% CI 0.38-0.80 in random-effects model). Subgroup analysis focusing on patients having the subcoronary technique for homograft implantation showed similar results. Significant heterogeneity between studies can be detected. No publication bias was found. There was no significant difference in early mortality between root replacement and root preserving groups. However, the root replacement technique group had a significantly lower rate of reoperation during long-term follow-up. Excluding outliers identified in a funnel plot reduced the heterogeneity and reached a similar conclusion.

Three-dimensional in vivo characterization of calcification in native valves and in Freestyle versus homograft aortic valves

This article describes a novel interactive method for quantitative evaluation of calcium deposits in the aortic valve by means of electron beam tomography data fusion technique. The technique relied on the use of hierarchic 3-dimensional free-form volume registration with fast global optimization between normally acquired and contrast-enhanced electron beam tomographic volume. A total of 66 contrast-enhanced electron beam tomographic scans of the aortic root were performed in 27 patients, 10 with native aortic valve disease (group A) and 17 from a prospective randomized trial of aortic root replacement (group B, 9 Freestyle grafts [Medtronic, Inc, Minneapolis, Minn] and 8 homografts). To validate the in vivo electron beam tomographic measurements, 5 patients from group A underwent electron beam tomographic scans before the operation and then had their own valves, explanted at the time of surgery, analyzed for calcium quantification by ex vivo electron beam tomography. In group A, the mean (+/- SE) calcification score was 6560 +/- 2388, which correlated with peak gradients measured at echocardiography ( r = 0.93, P = .02). In group B, the mean (+/- SE) calcification score was 168 +/- 27, showing a tendency toward a lower calcification for Freestyle valves than for homografts at 2 years after implantation ( P = .052). A mean variability of 6% was found between in vivo electron beam tomographic scores of calcification and those measured on valve specimens after explantation. We describe a novel method to characterize the degree and location of calcification in both native valves and postoperative valve implants. The technique may be useful in the management of patients with aortic valve disease and has potential as a screening tool for high-risk patients to diagnose early valve calcification and possibly institute corrective measures.