Stentless Bioprosthetic Valves Research Articles

Procedural and one-year outcomes of the BASILICA technique in Europe: the multicentre EURO-BASILICA registry.

The real-world outcomes of the use of the BASILICA (Bioprosthetic or Native Aortic Scallop Intentional Laceration to Prevent Iatrogenic Coronary Artery Obstruction) transcatheter technique in Europe have not been described. We sought to evaluate the procedural and one-year outcomes of BASILICA in patients at high risk for coronary artery obstruction (CAO) undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in amulticentre European registry (EURO-BASILICA). Seventy-six patients undergoing BASILICA and TAVI at ten European centres were included. Eighty-five leaflets were identified as targets for BASILICA due to high risk for CAO. The updated Valve Academic Research Consortium 3 (VARC-3) definitions were used to determine prespecified endpoints of technical and procedural success and adverse events up to one year. Treated aortic valves included native (5.3%), surgical bioprosthetic (92.1%) and transcatheter valves (2.6%). Double BASILICA (for both left and right coronary cusps) was performed in 11.8% of patients. Technical success with BASILICA was achieved in 97.7% and resulted in freedom from any target leaflet-related CAO in 90.6% with alow rate of complete CAO (2.4%). Target leaflet-related CAO occurred significantly more often in older and stentless bioprosthetic valves and with higher implantation levels of transcatheter heart valves. Procedural success was 88.2%, and freedom from VARC-3-defined early safety endpoints was 79.0%. One-year survival was 84.2%; 90.5% of patients were in New York Heart Association Functional Class I/II. EURO-BASILICA is the first multicentre study evaluating the BASILICA technique in Europe. The technique appeared feasible and effective in preventing TAVI-induced CAO, and one-year clinical outcomes were favourable. The residual risk for CAO requires further study.

Fusion Imaging–Guided BASILICA of a Stentless Bioprosthesis for Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Fusion Imaging–Guided BASILICA of a Stentless Bioprosthesis for Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Midterm Outcomes of Stented Versus Stentless Bioprosthetic Valves After Aortic Root Replacement

To determine the impact of aortic root replacement (ARR) with a stentless bioprosthetic valve on midterm outcomes compared to a stented bioprosthetic valve-graft conduit. This was an observational study of aortic root operations from 2010 to 2018. All patients with a complete ARR for nonendocarditis reasons were included, while patients undergoing valve-sparing root replacements or primary aortic valve replacement or repair were excluded. Of the patients with a complete ARR, bioprosthetic valve implants were included, while mechanical valve implants were excluded. Patients were dichotomized into the stented ARR group and the stentless ARR group. A total of 1:1 nearest neighbor propensity matching was employed to assess the association of stentless valves with short-term and midterm outcomes. A total of 455 patients underwent a complete ARR with a bioprosthetic valve implant for nonendocarditis reasons, of which 212 (46.6%) received a stented valve, while 243 (53.4%) received a stentless valve. After matching, postoperative outcomes were similar across each group (P > 0.05), including operative mortality and adverse neurologic events. Median follow-up for the entire cohort was 4.41 years (95% CI: 4.01, 4.95). At 1 year follow-up, aortic regurgitation ≥ 2+ and ejection fraction were similar across each group (P > 0.05); however, the stentless valve group had lower aortic valve velocity and transvalvular pressure gradient. Finally, reoperations and survival were similar for each group over the study's follow-up (P > 0.05). Stentless valves may provide hemodynamic benefits after ARR; however, the clinical impact of those benefits for survival and reoperation may not yet be evident in the midterm.

Prevention of coronary obstruction in patients at risk undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the Hamburg BASILICA experience

ObjectivesThis study aimed to assess the clinical outcome of the bioprosthetic or native aortic scallop intentional laceration to prevent iatrogenic coronary obstruction (BASILICA) technique in a single-center patient cohort considered at high or prohibitive risk of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI)-induced coronary obstruction.MethodsBetween October 2019 and January 2021, a total of 15 consecutive patients (age 81.0 [78.1, 84.4] years; 53.3% female; EuroSCORE II 10.6 [6.3, 14.8] %) underwent BASILICA procedure prior to TAVI at our institution. Indications for TAVI were degeneration of stented (n = 12, 80.0%) or stentless (n = 1, 6.7%) bioprosthetic aortic valves, or calcific stenosis of native aortic valves (n = 2, 13.3%), respectively. Individual risk of TAVI-induced coronary obstruction was assessed by pre-procedural computed tomography analysis. Procedural and 30-day outcomes were documented in accordance with Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-2 criteria.ResultsBASILICA was attempted for single left coronary cusp in 12 patients (80.0%), for single right coronary cusp in 2 patients (13.3%), and for both cusps in 1 patient (6.7%), respectively. The procedure was feasible in 13 patients (86.7%) resulting in effective prevention of coronary obstruction, whilst TAVI was performed without prior successful bioprosthetic leaflet laceration in two patients (13.3%). In one of these patients (6.7%), additional chimney stenting immediately after TAVI was performed. No all-cause deaths or strokes were documented after 30 days.ConclusionThe BASILICA technique appears to be a feasible, safe and effective concept to avoid iatrogenic coronary artery obstruction during TAVI in both native and bioprosthetic valves of patients at high or prohibitive risk.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04227002 (Hamburg AoRtic Valve cOhoRt).

The Impact of Postoperative Thrombocytopenia in a Stentless Bioprosthetic Valve (SOLO SMART)

The Impact of Postoperative Thrombocytopenia in a Stentless Bioprosthetic Valve (SOLO SMART)

Structural valve deterioration and mode of failure of stentless bioprosthetic valves

BackgroundAortic stentless bioprosthetic valve (SLBPV), either porcine or pericardial, minimizes transvalvular gradient and favors regression of left ventricular hypertrophy. The drawback consists of longer time for suturing. While structural valve deterioration (SVD) in stented porcine and pericardial BPVs has been extensively investigated, less information is available on SLBPVs. Material and MethodsWe studied 82 SLBPVs explants, either porcine (Toronto SPV, [St. Jude Medical, MN, USA], CryolifeO'Brien Model 300 and CryoLife-O'Brien [Cryolife International, GA, USA], BioCor PVS [St. Jude Medical, MN, USA] Prima and Prima Plus [Edwards Lifesciences Corp. One Edwards Way, CA, formerly Baxter Inc, CA, USA]) or pericardial ([Pericarbon Freedom and Freedom Solo [Sorin-Biomedica, S.p.A., Saluggia, Italy]). ResultsBy excluding cases with leak and endocarditis, we focused the investigation on 46 SLBPVs, which failed because of SVD.Gender was male in 29 (63%).Mean age of patients at time of implant was 59.8 years. Postoperative time of SVD was 115.0 months for porcine and 79.0 months for pericardial SLBPVs. Dysfunction requiring reoperation was mainly incompetence for porcine and stenosis for pericardial SLBPVs.Even pinpoint mineralization at the commissures resulted in sudden cusp tearing and incompetence. Cuspal atheromasia accounted for cusp tearing even in the absence of calcification.Mineralization showed progression with time in pericardial but not in porcine SLBPVs. ConclusionsTissue mineralization remains the nightmare also of SLBPVs, with the peculiar features of pinpoint calcific deposits at commissures, tearing and abrupt incompetence in porcine SLBPVs and of massive cuspal mineralization and stenosis in pericardial SLBPVs.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve-in-Valve Replacement for Degenerated Stentless Bioprosthetic Aortic Valves: Results of a Multicenter Retrospective Analysis

ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for stentless bioprosthetic aortic valves (SBAVs) and to identify predictors of adverse events. BackgroundViV TAVR in SBAVs is associated with unique technical challenges and risks. MethodsClinical records and computer tomographic scans were retrospectively reviewed for procedural complications, predictors of coronary obstruction, mortality, and echocardiographic results. ResultsAmong 66 SBAV patients undergoing ViV TAVR, mortality was 2 of 66 patients (3.0%) at 30 days and 5 of 52 patients (9.6%) at 1 year. At 1 year, left ventricular end-systolic dimension was decreased versus baseline (median [interquartile range (IQR)]: 3.0 [2.6 to 3.6] cm vs. 3.7 [3.2 to 4.4] cm; p < 0.001). Coronary occlusion in 6 of 66 procedures (9.1%) resulted in myocardial infarction in 2 of 66 procedures (3.0%). Predictors of coronary occlusion included subcoronary implant technique compared with full root replacement (6 of 31, 19.4% vs. 0 of 28, 0%; p = 0.01), short simulated radial valve-to-coronary distance (median [IQR]: 3.4 [0.0 to 4.6] mm vs. 4.6 [3.2 to 6.2] mm; p = 0.016), and low coronary height (7.8 [5.8 to 10.0] mm vs. 11.6 [8.7 to 13.9] mm; p = 0.003). Coronary arteries originated <10 mm above the valve leaflets in 34 of 97 unobstructed coronary arteries (35.1%). ConclusionsTAVR in SBAVs is frequently associated with high-risk coronary anatomy but can be performed with a low risk of death and myocardial infarction, resulting in favorable ventricular remodeling. A subcoronary surgical approach is associated with an increased risk of coronary obstruction.

Homografts versus stentless bioprosthetic valves in the pulmonary position: a multicentre propensity-matched comparison in patients younger than 20 years.

The aim of this study was to compare the performance of pulmonary homografts with stentless bioprosthetic valves [Medtronic Freestyle™ (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA)] in the pulmonary position in patients with congenital heart disease (CHD) younger than 20 years. Between January 2000 and December 2017, 215 patients were retrospectively identified from hospital databases in 3 congenital heart centres in Australia. Valve performance was evaluated using standard criteria. Propensity score matching was used to balance the 2 treatment groups. Freedom from reintervention for patients who received a pulmonary homograft (n = 163) was 96%, 88% and 81% at 5, 10 and 15 years and for patients who received a Freestyle™ valve (n = 52) was 98%, 89% and 31% at 5, 10 and 15 years, respectively. Freedom from structural valve degeneration for patients with a homograft was 92%, 87% and 77% at 5, 10 and 15 years and for patients with a Freestyle valve was 96%, 80% and 14% at 5, 10 and 15 years, respectively. In the first 10 years, there was no difference in outcomes [reintervention hazard ratios (HR) = 0.69, 95% confidence intervals (CI) (0.20-2.42), P = 0.56; structural valve degeneration HR = 0.92 (0.34-2.51), P = 0.87]. After 10 years, the recipients of the Freestyle valves were at higher risk of both outcomes [reintervention HR = 7.89; 95% CI (2.79-22.34), P < 0.001; structural valve degeneration HR = 7.41 (2.77-19.84), P < 0.001]. The findings were similar when analysed by implantation in the orthotopic position and in the propensity-matched groups. The Freestyle stentless bioprosthetic valve is a comparable alternative to cryopreserved pulmonary homografts up to 10 years after implantation when implanted in an orthotopic pulmonary position in patients younger than 20 years with CHD.

Study Protocol for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for a Degenerated Aortic Bioprosthesis in a Japanese Cohort

Background: The valve-in-valve (VIV) procedure is being increasingly performed in high-risk patients with a degenerated bioprosthesis in an aortic position in Western countries. The early safety and efficacy of the VIV procedure, however, remain unclear in Japanese patients with a small aortic annulus. We present the protocol for a study designed to evaluate the early safety and efficacy of the VIV procedure in the aortic position in Japanese patients. Methods and Results: The prospective, single-center, non-comparative, clinical study of the VIV procedure for the aortic position (AORTIC VIV study) commenced in August 2016 and will end in March 2020. Patients will be monitored for ≥1 month after the VIV procedure. The targeted number of patients is 11. Eligible patients are those who have undergone transcatheter aortic valve replacement for a surgical valve (including stented or stentless bioprosthetic valves), or for a transcatheter heart valve. The VIV procedure is performed in high-operative-risk patients with substantial prosthetic valve stenosis, and regurgitation and heart failure resistant to medical treatment (unless the patient meets an exclusion criterion). The safety and efficacy of the VIV procedure will be evaluated in accordance with the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 initiative. Conclusions: The AORTIC VIV study will clarify the early safety and efficacy of the VIV procedure in Japanese patients.

The place of a stentless aortic bioprosthetic valve

The place of a stentless aortic bioprosthetic valve

Stented versus stentless aortic valve replacement in elderly: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Stentless aortic bioprostheses offer improved outcomes and long-term survival over stented aortic bioprostheses in aortic valve replacement (AVR). However, it remains unclear whether this improved outcome can also be demonstrated in elderly patients. This meta-analysis sought to determine whether stentless bioprosthetic valves improve clinical outcomes compared with stented valves in elderly patients undergoing AVR. Methods: A comprehensive search was undertaken among PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Ovid to identify all randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials available up to March 2017 comparing stentless to stented bioprosthetic valves in elderly patients undergoing AVR. Odds ratios (ORs), weighted mean differences, or standardized mean differences and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were analysed. Results: A total of 1,048 patients were analysed and data extracted from six studies were suitable for meta-analysis. Average age was 77 years. The stented group displayed a significantly shorter cardiopulmonary bypass (P&lt;0.0001; 95% CI: 0.424 to 1.05) and aortic cross clamp time (P&lt;0.0001; 95% CI: 0.237 to 0.491) compared to the stentless group. There was no difference in the relative risks of stroke events (P=0.5074). In hospital mortality was significantly lower in the stentless group (P&lt;0.0001). However, there was no difference in the 5-year mortality postoperatively for the two groups (P=0.835). Conclusions: Our results showed that stentless aortic valves resulted in lower in-hospital and similar 5-year mortality compared to stented valves, despite less favourable operative data. They have also had better echocardiographic findings both while in hospital and at 6 months of follow up.

Morphometrical and biomechanical analyses of a stentless bioprosthetic valve: an implication to avoid potential primary tissue failure.

Stentless bioprosthetic valves provide hemodynamic advantages over stented valves as well as excellent durability. However, some primary tissue failures in bioprostheses have been reported. This study was conducted to evaluate the morphometrical and biomechanical properties of the stentless Medtronic Freestyle™ aortic root bioprosthesis, to identify any arising problem areas, and to speculate on a potential solution. The three-dimensional heterogeneity of the stentless bioprosthesis wall was investigated using computed tomography. The ascending aorta and the right, left, and non-coronary sinuses of Valsalva were resected and examined by an indentation test to evaluate their biomechanical properties. The non-coronary sinus of Valsalva was significantly thinner than the right sinus of Valsalva (p < 0.01). Young's modulus, calculated as an indicator of elasticity, was significantly greater at the non-coronary sinus of Valsalva (430.7 ± 374.2kPa) than at either the left (190.6 ± 70.6kPa, p < 0.01) or right sinuses of Valsalva (240.0 ± 56.5kPa, p < 0.05). Based on the morphometrical and biomechanical analyses of the stentless bioprosthesis, we demonstrated that there are differences in wall thickness and elasticity between each sinus of Valsalva. These differences suggest that the non-coronary sinus of Valsalva is the most vulnerable and at greater risk of tissue failure. The exclusion of the non-coronary sinus of Valsalva may be beneficial to mitigate the long-term risks of tissue failure in the stentless bioprosthesis.

Radiopaque preventive landmarks' placement during stentless bioprosthesis implantation.

In patients with aortic stenosis, bioprosthetic valves are increasingly used. Although their benefits, they are also presenting limitations, as their time-related degeneration. Reoperation which was, until a few years ago, the only treatment for this condition, carries a significant surgical risk, especially in patients with multiple comorbidities, so the benefit of less invasive technique enabling the implantation of aortic valve prosthesis [transcatheter aortic valve-in-surgical aortic valve (TAV-in-SAV)] by a percutaneous access is remarkably important. Eligible patients are judged by a heart team, and imaging plays a key role in this selection, focusing on correct identification of bioprosthetic aortic valves type and size, evaluation of patients at increased anatomical risk for coronary artery occlusion. Radiolucency of stentless bioprosthetic valves, represent a significant challenge. Surgical aortic valve replacements (SAVRs) with a bioprosthesis were performed using a stentless valve with no radiopaque components (Solo Smart, Sorin). The chosen method, in order to evaluate the results of the operation, was computed tomography (CT) scanning (64-slice MDCT, Brilliance, Philips). The study consisted of a thin sliced contrast electrocardiograph (ECG) gated chest CT (1 systolic cardiac phase), trying to simulate the required assessment of aortic root and the radiopaque placed markers. As surgical implant technique varies and may impact the relationship of the prosthetic annulus to the coronary ostia, marking the aortic annulus during the operation in order to have some useful radiopaque landmarks, is a great assistance promoting better orientation and correct identification of the position of the bioprosthetic valve. Although the implantation of metallic vascular clips at the level of aortic annulus (in any commissure or in the middle of any cups) was considered, the decision was to position three metallic clips bellow the aortic annulus in the three stiches ligated during the solo valve implantation. We are suggesting the preventive implantation of radiopaque landmarks, during SAVRs using tissue valves which are lacking fixed anatomic markers, as a guide for a presumptive TAV-in-SAV procedure, keeping in mind that appropriate guidance is crucial and can prevent valve misplacement, coronary obstruction and other potentially lethal complications.

TCT-778 Valve-In-Valve (ViV) Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR): A Comparison of Failed Stentless and Stented Surgical Bio-prosthetic Aortic Valve

The literature is limited on ViV TAVR in stentless vs. stented bioprosthetic surgical aortic valve. We retrospectively analyzed 36 patients who underwent ViV TAVR in prior surgical bioprosthetic valves at Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center from October 2014 to December 2016. 28/36 (77.8%) ViV TAVR

Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation for failing surgical aortic stentless bioprosthetic valves: A single-center experience

BackgroundValve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic implantation (TAVI) is an alternative to redo surgery for patients with a failing aortic bioprosthesis. A lack of anatomic markers may complicate the procedure. This study reports procedural and midterm outcomes of patients undergoing ViV-TAVI for failing stentless bioprostheses, at a single institution. MethodsA total of 22 consecutive patients with failing homograft (n = 17), stented porcine valve (n = 3), aortic root bioprosthesis (n = 1), or native resuspended aortic valve (n = 1) (aged 74 ± 12 years; Society of Thoracic Surgeons 30-day predicted risk of mortality score: 14% ± 8%) were treated with ViV-TAVI, between 2007 and 2014. All had severe aortic regurgitation and were highly symptomatic before TAVI: 41% had chronic kidney disease; 32% had undergone previous coronary bypass grafts; 27% had previous percutaneous coronary intervention; 14% had severe pulmonary disease; 14% had had a stroke. All underwent TAVI with a self-expanding device. ResultsThe 30-day mortality was 0%. No cases occurred of myocardial infarction, tamponade, stroke, severe bleeding, acute kidney injury, or major vascular complications. Three instances of device migration, and 1 of device embolization, occurred. Permanent pacing was required in 14%. Paravalvular aortic regurgitation was absent or mild in 19, and mild to moderate in 3. Average hospital stay was 8 ± 3 days; all patients were discharged home. Six-month and 1-year mortality was 4.8% and 14.3%, respectively. Aortic valve area and paravalvular aortic regurgitation were unchanged at 1 year. ConclusionsThe ViV-TAVI procedure may be performed in high-risk patients with a degenerate stentless bioprosthesis with low 30-day mortality, and 1-year mortality of 14.3%. Although technically challenging, owing to a lack of anatomic markers, satisfactory positioning is possible in most cases, with excellent clinical and echocardiographic outcomes.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement indications should be expanded to lower-risk and younger patients.

Even in the late 1950s, patients suffering from significant aortic stenosis were confined to death owing to the absence of treatment option for the disease. The invention of extracorporeal circulation revolutionized cardiac surgery.1–3 Complex surgical intervention on the diseased heart became available, including replacement of the stenotic aortic valve.4 Especially in the early days of conventional aortic valve replacement (AVR), however, in-hospital mortality was up to 25% because of cardiac failure, bleeding or thromboembolic complications, infections, or arrhythmias.4–9 The design of the first mechanical heart valves left patients with peak gradients of ≥60 mm Hg. Applying the updated standardized end-point definitions for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI; Valve Academic Research Consortium [VARC] 2) definitions10 to this patient population would have resulted in a procedural success rate of 0%, and the US Food and Drug Administration probably would have never approved the devices. The world has changed considerably since then. Half a century later, conventional aortic valve surgery (AVR) can be considered a top turnaround story: nowadays, the operation is fast and easy and yields excellent outcomes in a broad patient population.11 This is the consequence of advances not only in technology but also in surgical experience gained in millions of patients with aortic stenosis. Today, minimally invasive techniques are applied that facilitate postoperative recovery, especially in elderly patients, and reduce the likelihood of wound infections.12 The flow properties of mechanical heart valves also improved remarkably, which led to less rigid need for anticoagulation and lower bleeding and thromboembolic complications.13 Stented and stentless bioprosthetic valves have been shown to be long-lasting, which reduces the need of reoperation in case of bioprosthetic valve failure.14,15 The hemodynamic results are excellent with low transvalvular gradients, regardless of whether mechanical or bioprosthetic …

Transcatheter heart valve implantation for failing surgical bioprostheses: technical considerations and evidence for valve-in-valve procedures

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) represents a novel technology for treating patients with severe symptomatic calcific aortic stenosis at high or prohibitive surgical risk. In patients at excessive surgical risk,...

Early Stenosis of Stentless Aortic Valve Prosthesis: A Word of Caution

Early stenosis of stentless bioprosthetic valves is rarely reported. In this report, we discuss a 75-year-old woman who presented with signs of congestive heart failure 5 months after a stentless aortic valve replacement, complicated by postoperative heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. Intraoperative findings were highly unusual, consisting of a fibrous band in the subvalvular apparatus linking the interventricular septum to the free wall of the left ventricle, resulting in significant left ventricular outflow tract obstruction. The possible causes of the fibrous band are discussed.

Abstract 17048: Fifteen Year Follow-Up After Aortic Root Replacement with Stentless Biological Valve Conduits: Homograft versus Freestyle

Objectives: The choice of biologic aortic valve substitute for aortic root replacement is multifaceted. Herein, we report the compared long-term outcome of two type of stentless biologic valve conduits namely homograft and Fresstyle bioprosthesis used to replace the aortic root and followed prospectively up to 15 years. Methods: Between 1993 and 2011, 188 patients underwent elective primary aortic root replacement with a stentless bioprosthetic aortic valve with (n=38) or without (n=150) CABG. Among these patients, 98 Freestyle and 90 homografts were implanted. All clinical and echocardioraphic data were collected prospectively. Mean overall follow-up was 8.5±3.9 years (range: 0.1-15). It was 8.4±3.8 years for Freestyle, and 8.5±4.0 years for homografts, and complete in all patients. Results: Patient characteristics were comparable between groups except for age and number of pre-operative diagnosis of endocarditis ( p &lt;0.0001) and moderate/severe aortic insufficiency ( p &lt;0.008). The mean age was significantly higher in the Freesstyle (65.4±8.5years) compared to homograft (48.1±13.0 years) group ( p &lt; 0.0001). Hospital mortality was comparable between the Freestyle and the homograft group (5.1% versus 7.8%, p =0.6). Ten and 15-years survival was 66.7% and 53.0% in the Freestyle versus 89.9% and 69.1% in the homograft group, respectively ( p &lt;0.001). Freedom from reoperation due to structural valve deterioration (SVD) at 10 and 15 years was 98.8% and.92.7% for the Freestyle compared to 87.4% and 68.6% in the homografts group, respectively ( p =0.009). Independent risk factors for reoperation for SVD were age (OR:1.1, CI: 1.02-1.1, p =0.002), and use of homograft (OR:7.7, CI: 1.7-35.5, p =0.008). Independent risk factors for poorer long-term survival were age (OR 1.2, CI: 1.1-1.3, p =0.001), and lenght of hospital stay (OR 2.9, CI: 1.5-3.8, p =0.0003). Mean pressure gradient at the end of follow-up was 8.5±6.2 mm Hg for the Freestyle and 9.9±9.1 mm Hg for the homograft patients. Conclusion: The choice of stentless biologic valve for aortic root reconstruction have no influence on early and long-term survival. The use of biologic root reconstruction with Freestyle bioprostheses provides a better freedom from reoperation due to SVD compared to homografts.

Aortic Root and Right Ventricular Outflow Tract Reconstruction Using Composite Biological Valved Conduits After Failed Ross Procedure

The Ross procedure or pulmonary autograft has been frequently used for surgical treatment of aortic valve disease. One considerable disadvantage of the Ross procedure is the involvement of two valves (aortic and pulmonary) in treatment of single (aortic) valve disease. Both the aortic and pulmonary valves are at risk for future degeneration. Concurrent failure of both valves after a Ross procedure is rare but presents a significant technical challenge when reoperation is necessary. We describe a novel approach to this complication using composite biological valved conduits comprised of stentless bioprosthetic valves and polyester grafts.