Valve-sparing Aortic Replacement Research Articles

Multinational and Cross-Sectional Survey on Valve-Sparing Aortic Replacement Controversies

Multinational and Cross-Sectional Survey on Valve-Sparing Aortic Replacement Controversies

Outcomes of the Valve-Sparing Root Replacement Procedure with Partial Upper Sternotomy.

Due to better postoperative convalescence and quality of life, experienced centers focus on minimally invasive surgical techniques and approaches, but this approach is not routinely performed for valve-sparing root replacement procedures. The purpose of this study was to assess the safety and feasibility of valve-sparing root replacement via partial upper sternotomy. Between January 2016 and April 2021, 269 patients underwent a valve-sparing root replacement procedure, and partial upper sternotomy was performed in 52 patients. The clinical outcomes of the partial upper sternotomy (PUS) and complete sternotomy (CS) groups, including mortality, degree of aortic insufficiency, blood loss and consumption of blood products, postoperative complications, and hospitalization expenses, were compared. The Kaplan–Meier method was used to assess the degree of aortic regurgitation. Propensity score matching was performed as a sensitivity analysis. There was only one in-hospital death (in the CS group, p = 1) and no postoperative moderate to severe aortic insufficiency in either group. The blood loss and consumption of blood products in the PUS group were also lower than in the CS group, especially for plasma use. Regarding the need for re-exploration because of bleeding, acute kidney injury, pericardial pleural effusion, drainage volume within the first 24 h, mechanical ventilation time, and arrhythmia, the two groups were comparable. Patients in the CS group showed a longer ICU time (74.20 ± 47.21 vs. 50.9 30.16 h, p = 0.001) and higher hospitalization expenses (135,649.52 ± 29,992.21 vs. 123,380.15 ± 27,062.82 yuan, p < 0.001). None of the patients died or reoperated during the follow-up. Freedom from moderate or severe aortic insufficiency remained comparable after matching (p = 0.97). Minimally invasive valve-sparing aortic replacement via partial upper sternotomy can be safely performed in selected patients.

Outcomes of Reintervention on the Autograft After Ross Procedure

After a Ross procedure, a small subset of patients requires reintervention for autograft dilatation or valve insufficiency. We sought to determine the indications, nature, and outcomes of autograft reinterventions in the left ventricular outflow tract after a Ross procedure. We retrospectively reviewed the charts of 316 consecutive patients, age 4 days to 70 years, who underwent a Ross procedure at our institution. Of these, 47 patients (15%) required autograft reintervention during a median follow-up of 8.2 years. Forty-seven patients, median age 26 years (interquartile range [IQR], 14.4 to 44.8 years), 32 (68%) men, required autograft reintervention a median 5.5 years (IQR, 1.8 to 9.4 years) after a Ross procedure. In 47% (22of 47 patients), the autograft valve could be salvaged (15 valve-sparing aortic replacements, 7 valve repairs). The remaining 53% underwent replacement of the root (10 mechanical, 5 homograft) or valve alone (7 mechanical, 3 bioprosthetic). Twenty patients presented without autograft root dilatation 1 year (IQR, 0.5 to 2.9 years) after Ross. Fifteen of them (75%) required valve replacement. The 27 patients who demonstrated root dilatation presented 6.9 years (IQR, 4.5 to 9.7 years; p < 0.01 compared with the nondilated group) after Ross, and 17 (63%) of these valves could be spared (p= 0.01). There was no surgical mortality and 5 (11%) major morbidity events. Patients were followed up for 4.9 years (IQR, 2.1 to 7 years) after left ventricular outflow tract reintervention. For patients whose autograft valve could be spared, 3-, 5-, and 8-year freedom from valve replacement was 92%, 86%, and 86%, respectively. At last follow-up, only 1 patient had greater than mild aortic insufficiency, and all but 1 had normal ejection fraction. Autograft reintervention after a Ross appears to follow a bimodal distribution. Patients with primary autograft leaflet problems tend to present early without root dilatation and frequently require valve replacement. The autograft valve can be salvaged in the majority of patients who present later with root dilatation. Valve-sparing procedures are durable in the intermediate term and can be accomplished with low morbidity.

Impact of Graft Size and Commissural Resuspension Height on Aortic Valve Competence in Valve-Sparing Aortic Replacement under Physiological Pressures

Valve competence in valve-sparing aortic root replacement has been described as being influenced by commissural height as well as graft size. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of a gradual reduction of commissural height and graft diameter on aortic insufficiency under physiological conditions in an IN VITRO model. Porcine aortic valves were reimplanted into a tubular graft and a native commissural height was obtained. Subsequently the height was reduced by 10 % and 20 %, respectively. To investigate the impact of graft size, a 30 % reduction of the prosthesis diameter was carried out in valves with both native and reduced commissural heights. All conditions were investigated under pulsatile flow simulation and static pressure exposure. Reduction of commissural height caused regurgitation at both 10 % and 20 % lower heights, which was more pronounced in grafts with 20 % reduction. Graft undersizing resulted in significant reflux, with regurgitation even occurring with valves in a native commissural position. Valve competence is impaired both by the reduction of commissural height and by reduced graft size. In particular, reimplantation of aortic valves into undersized grafts promotes valve insufficiency even if commissural height is well adjusted.

Acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock in a patient with acute aortic dissection

Diagnosing acute Stanford type A aortic dissection with the uncommon involvement of the left main coronary artery(LMCA) remains challenging for the emergency physician because it can resemble acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock. The following case report illustrate this infrequent but critical situation. A 52-year-old woman with a history of hypertension awakened with acute retrosternal chest pain accompanied by nausea and vomiting. She was referred to our hospital for primary coronary intervention because of acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock. Coronary angiography indeed revealed LMCA occlusion. Subsequently successful percutaneous coronary intervention with stent implantation was performed, followed by immediate clinical improvement of the patient. Soon after admission at the coronary care unit, severe chest pain, hypotension, and electrocardiographic signs of diffuse myocardial ischemia relapsed. Control coronary angiography,however, showed no in-stent thrombosis. Review of clinical examination revealed an aortic regurgitation murmur. Because of this dynamic pattern of (1) signs of acute myocardial ischemia, (2) relapse of hemodynamic collapse, and (3) unaltered control coronary angiography together with the confirmed aortic regurgitation at transthoracic echocardiography, the patient was suspected of having aortic dissection. Transesophageal echocardiography revealed Stanford type A aortic dissection with severe eccentric aortic regurgitation and no pericardial effusion. Emergent valve-sparing aortic replacement was performed. The patient recovered completely. In this case, the lifesaving element was primary coronary intervention with stenting of the LMCA preventing extensive myocardial damage followed by a surgical correction of the aorta.

Reimplantation Valve-Sparing Aortic Root Replacement for Aortic Root Aneurysm in the Elderly: Are We Pushing the Limits?

Reimplantation valve-sparing aortic root replacement has been increasingly performed with improving perioperative and midterm results. However, extending the age criterion in patient selection remains a debate. This study reviews the results of reimplantation valve-sparing aortic replacement in patients greater than 60 years of age. During a 51-month period, 63 patients with aortic root aneurysms underwent reimplantation valve-sparing aortic root replacement. The Gelweave Valsalva prosthesis (TERUMO CardioVascular Systems Corp., Ann Arbor, MI, USA) was used in all but one case. The patients were predominantly male, and the mean age was 67 years (range, 61-83 years). Four patients had congenital bicuspid aortic valves, and cusp repair was required in one patient. The mean follow-up was 25 months (range, 1-51 months). There were one hospital and two late deaths. Overall survival at 51 months was 84 +/- 9.9%. During follow-up, one patient developed severe aortic incompetence (AI) requiring an aortic valve replacement (AVR). Freedom from reoperation at 51 months was 92.8 +/- 6.8%. Moderate AI was present at latest echocardiogram in one patient. Freedom from moderate or severe AI at 51 months was 90 +/- 9.4%. There was no episode of endocarditis on follow-up. Univariate analysis demonstrated that no preoperative or intraoperative factor was a predictor for late reimplantation failure. Reimplantation valve-sparing aortic root replacement in patients greater than 60 years old can be performed with satisfactory perioperative and midterm results. Long-term results are needed to define the durability of this technique and its role in this subset of patients.

Valve-sparing aortic root replacement in bicuspid aortic valves: A reasonable option?

ObjectivesAortic dilatation occurs in many patients with bicuspid aortic valves. We have added root replacement using the remodeling technique originally designed for tricuspid aortic valves to bicuspid aortic valve repair for treatment of the dilated root. We compared the results of remodeling in bicuspid aortic valves with those in tricuspid aortic valves.MethodsFrom October 1995 through January 2004, 60 patients underwent root remodeling for bicuspid aortic valves (group A), and 130 patients underwent root remodeling for tricuspid aortic valves (group B). Correction of cusp prolapse was more often performed in group A (group A, 50/60; group B, 47/130; P < .0001). Transthoracic echocardiography was performed at 1 week, 6 and 12 months, and every year thereafter. Cumulative follow-up was 527 patient-years (mean, 2.9 ± 2 years).ResultsNo patient died in group A. Hospital mortality in group B was 5% (5/100; 95% confidence interval,1.6%-11.3%) after elective operations and 10% (3/30; 95% confidence interval, 2.1%-26.5%) after emergency operations. Mean systolic gradients were identical at 1 year (group A, 4.8 ± 2.1 mm Hg; group B, 4.0 ± 2 mm Hg) and 5 years (group A, 4.5 ± 2.3 mm Hg; group B, 3.9 ± 2.2 mm Hg). Freedom from aortic regurgitation of grade 2 or higher at 5 years was 96% in group A and 83% in group B (P = .07), and freedom from reoperation at 5 years was 98% in group A and 98% in group B (P = .73).ConclusionsValve-sparing aortic replacement with root remodeling can be applied to aortic dilatation and a regurgitant bicuspid aortic valve. Hemodynamic function and valve stability of a repaired bicuspid aortic valve are comparable with those seen in cases of tricuspid anatomy. Aortic dilatation occurs in many patients with bicuspid aortic valves. We have added root replacement using the remodeling technique originally designed for tricuspid aortic valves to bicuspid aortic valve repair for treatment of the dilated root. We compared the results of remodeling in bicuspid aortic valves with those in tricuspid aortic valves. From October 1995 through January 2004, 60 patients underwent root remodeling for bicuspid aortic valves (group A), and 130 patients underwent root remodeling for tricuspid aortic valves (group B). Correction of cusp prolapse was more often performed in group A (group A, 50/60; group B, 47/130; P < .0001). Transthoracic echocardiography was performed at 1 week, 6 and 12 months, and every year thereafter. Cumulative follow-up was 527 patient-years (mean, 2.9 ± 2 years). No patient died in group A. Hospital mortality in group B was 5% (5/100; 95% confidence interval,1.6%-11.3%) after elective operations and 10% (3/30; 95% confidence interval, 2.1%-26.5%) after emergency operations. Mean systolic gradients were identical at 1 year (group A, 4.8 ± 2.1 mm Hg; group B, 4.0 ± 2 mm Hg) and 5 years (group A, 4.5 ± 2.3 mm Hg; group B, 3.9 ± 2.2 mm Hg). Freedom from aortic regurgitation of grade 2 or higher at 5 years was 96% in group A and 83% in group B (P = .07), and freedom from reoperation at 5 years was 98% in group A and 98% in group B (P = .73). Valve-sparing aortic replacement with root remodeling can be applied to aortic dilatation and a regurgitant bicuspid aortic valve. Hemodynamic function and valve stability of a repaired bicuspid aortic valve are comparable with those seen in cases of tricuspid anatomy.

Valve-sparing aortic root replacement in bicuspid aortic valves: A reasonable option?

Aortic dilatation occurs in many patients with bicuspid aortic valves. We have added root replacement using the remodeling technique originally designed for tricuspid aortic valves to bicuspid aortic valve repair for treatment of the dilated root. We compared the results of remodeling in bicuspid aortic valves with those in tricuspid aortic valves. From October 1995 through January 2004, 60 patients underwent root remodeling for bicuspid aortic valves (group A), and 130 patients underwent root remodeling for tricuspid aortic valves (group B). Correction of cusp prolapse was more often performed in group A (group A, 50/60; group B, 47/130; P < .0001). Transthoracic echocardiography was performed at 1 week, 6 and 12 months, and every year thereafter. Cumulative follow-up was 527 patient-years (mean, 2.9 +/- 2 years). No patient died in group A. Hospital mortality in group B was 5% (5/100; 95% confidence interval,1.6%-11.3%) after elective operations and 10% (3/30; 95% confidence interval, 2.1%-26.5%) after emergency operations. Mean systolic gradients were identical at 1 year (group A, 4.8 +/- 2.1 mm Hg; group B, 4.0 +/- 2 mm Hg) and 5 years (group A, 4.5 +/- 2.3 mm Hg; group B, 3.9 +/- 2.2 mm Hg). Freedom from aortic regurgitation of grade 2 or higher at 5 years was 96% in group A and 83% in group B ( P = .07), and freedom from reoperation at 5 years was 98% in group A and 98% in group B ( P = .73). Valve-sparing aortic replacement with root remodeling can be applied to aortic dilatation and a regurgitant bicuspid aortic valve. Hemodynamic function and valve stability of a repaired bicuspid aortic valve are comparable with those seen in cases of tricuspid anatomy.