Valve-sparing Root Replacement Research Articles

Midterm durability of valve-sparing root replacement in bicuspid and tricuspid aortic valves

Background Among patients with bicuspid aortic valves (BAV) who are potential candidates for valve-sparing root replacement (VSRR), the long-term durability of this technique is not well understood. This study aimed to compare the clinical and echocardiographic outcomes of VSRR in those with BAV and tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) morphology. Methods This was a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent VSRR between 2007 and 2021 at a single center. Kaplan-Meier and log-rank analysis were used to estimate and compare freedom from mortality, progression to >2+ aortic insufficiency (AI), and reoperation between groups (BAV vs TAV). Preoperative and postoperative echocardiographic data were collected and assessed for temporal changes in mixed-effect models. Results A total of 185 patients (BAV, n = 52, 28.1%; TAV, n = 133, 71.9%) underwent VSRR. At baseline, BAV patients were younger (42.4 ± 11.6 vs 52.3 ± 12.6 years; P < 0.01) and had more severe AI (47.9% vs 27.0%; P = 0.02). Average cardiopulmonary bypass and cross-clamp times were similar. There were no differences in rates of postoperative complications, intensive care unit or hospital days, or 30-day readmission. TAV patients’ 1-, 5-, and 8-year survival rates were 99.2% [95% CI 97.8–100], 96.7% [93.5–99.9%], and 92.2% [85.6–99.3%], respectively. Overall, there were no differences between groups regarding freedom from mortality (P = 0.18), reoperation (P = 0.51), or recurrent >2+ AI (P = 0.97). Conclusions VSRR can be safely performed on patients with BAV and TAV morphology, yielding similar midterm freedom from mortality, recurrent >2+ AI, and reoperation. This technique should be considered in carefully selected patients with aortic root pathology and BAV anatomy when performed at experienced centers.

[Early to mid-term clinical outcomes of aortic valve repair in patients with bicuspid aortic insufficiency].

Objective: To examine the early to mid-term clinical outcomes of aortic valve repair in patients with bicuspid aortic insufficiency. Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study. The clinical data of 124 patients with BAV insufficiency who underwent aortic valve repair from January 2017 to June 2023 in the Department of Cardiovascular Surgery at Fuwai Hospital were analyzed retrospectively. There were 117 males and 7 females with an age of (38.1±12.7) years (range: 14 to 65 years). Depending on whether the aortic sinus was replaced or not, surgical approaches were divided into valve sparing root replacement (reimplantation, remodeling, modified remodeling) and isolated aortic valve repair (annuloplasty, isolated aortic valve leaflet repair). Perioperative and follow-up data were collected. Kaplan-Meier method was used to plot the curves of survival rate, free recurrence rate of massive aortic valve insufficiency and free re-operation rate, and Log-rank test was used for comparison between groups. Results: Among the surgeries, there were 47 cases of reimplantation, 8 cases of remodeling, 8 cases of modified remodeling, 48 cases of aortic annuloplasty (external annuloplasty in 22 cases, CV-0 annuloplasty in 26 cases), and 13 cases of isolated leaflet repair. Leaflet plication was the most used leaflet repair technique, used in 103 patients. The cardiopulmonary bypass time was (133.7±56.9) minutes (range: 48 to 461 minutes), and aortic cross-clamp time was (103.8±47.8) minutes (range: 25 to 306 minutes), with no surgical mortality. All patients underwent outpatient or telephone follow-up. The cumulative follow-up time was 340.3 person-years and the mean follow-up time was (M (IQR)) 34.0 (25.5) months (range: 3 to 76 months). The 5-year survival rate was 98.4%, the 5-year freedom from significant insufficiency rate was 93.4% and the 5-year freedom from aortic valve reoperation rate was 95.6%. The subgroup analysis revealed a significantly better freedom from the significant insufficiency rate in the aortic valve annular reduction group compared to the non-reduction group (P<0.01). Conclusions: Aortic valve repair in patients with bicuspid aortic insufficiency could obtain steady early to mid-term outcomes. Aortic annuloplasty can reduce the risk of recurrent aortic valve insufficiency in patients undergoing aortic repair.

Long-term outcomes following valve-sparing root replacement with concomitant mitral repair

ObjectivesTo examine the late outcomes of valve-sparing root replacement and concomitant mitral valve repair in patients who have been followed prospectively for more than 2 decades. MethodsFrom 1992 to 2020, 54 consecutive patients (mean age, 47 ± 16 years; 80% men) underwent valve-sparing root replacement (45 reimplantation and 9 remodeling) with concomitant repair of the mitral valve. Patients were followed prospectively for a median of 9 years (IQR, 3-14 years). ResultsNo patient experienced perioperative death or stroke. There were 3 late deaths and the 15-year overall survival was 96.0% (95% CI, 74.8%-99.4%), similar to the age- and sex-matched population. Over the follow-up period, 6 patients had reoperation of the aortic valve and 3 on the mitral valve. Of those, 2 had reoperation on both aortic and mitral valves for a total of 7 reoperations in this cohort. The cumulative proportion of reoperation at 10 years of either or both valves were as follows: aortic valve 11.4% (95% CI, 3.9%-33.3%), mitral valve 4.2% (95% CI, 0.6%-28.4%), and both valves 11.4% (95% CI, 3.9%-33.3%). The estimated probability of developing moderate/severe aortic insufficiency at 15 years was 18.5% (95% CI, 9.0%-34.2%). On final echocardiographic follow-up, none of the patients had developed moderate/severe mitral regurgitation. ConclusionsIn this single-center series of concomitant valve-sparing root replacement and mitral valve repair, we observed excellent clinical outcomes with a low risk of death or valve-related complications. Continued surveillance of late valve function is necessary.

Axillary vs Femoral Arterial Cannulation in Acute Type A Dissection: International Multicenter Data

BackgroundCannulation strategy in acute type A dissection (ATAD) varies widely without known gold standards. This study compared ATAD outcomes of axillary vs femoral artery cannulation in a large cohort from the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection (IRAD). MethodsThe study retrospectively reviewed 2145 patients from the IRAD Interventional Cohort (1996-2021) who underwent ATAD repair with axillary or femoral cannulation (axillary group: n = 1106 [52%]; femoral group: n = 1039 [48%]). End points included the following: early mortality; neurologic, respiratory, and renal complications; malperfusion; and tamponade. All outcomes are presented as axillary with respect to femoral. ResultsThe proportion of patients younger than 70 years in both groups was similar (n = 1577 [74%]), as were bicuspid aortic valve, Marfan syndrome, and previous dissection. Patients with femoral cannulation had slightly more aortic insufficiency (408 [55%] vs 429 [60%]; P = .058) and coronary involvement (48 [8%] vs 70 [13%]; P = .022]. Patients with axillary cannulation underwent more total aortic arch (156 [15%] vs 106 [11%]; P = .02) and valve-sparing root replacements (220 [22%] vs 112 [12%]; P < .001). More patients with femoral cannulation underwent commissural resuspension (269 [30.9%] vs 324 [35.3%]; P = .05). Valve replacement rates were not different. The mean duration of cardiopulmonary bypass was longer in the femoral group (190 [149-237] minutes vs 196 [159-247] minutes; P = .037). In-hospital mortality was similar between the axillary (n = 165 [15%]) and femoral (n = 149 [14%]) groups (P = .7). Furthermore, there were no differences in stroke, visceral ischemia, tamponade, respiratory insufficiency, coma, or spinal cord ischemia. ConclusionsAxillary cannulation is associated with a more stable ATAD presentation, but it is a more extensive intervention compared with femoral cannulation. Both procedures have equivalent early mortality, stroke, tamponade, and malperfusion outcomes after statistical adjustment.

In-hospital outcomes predictors and trends of redo sternotomy aortic root replacements: insights from a UK registry analysis.

Redo sternotomy aortic root surgery is technically demanding, and the evidence on outcomes is mostly from retrospective, small sample, single-centre studies. We report the trend, early clinical results and outcome predictors of redo aortic root replacement over 20 years in the United Kingdom. We retrospectively analysed collected data from the UK National Adult Cardiac Surgery Audit (NACSA) on all redo sternotomy aortic root replacements performed between 30th January 1998 and 19th March 2019. We analysed trends in the volume of operations, characteristics of hospital survivors vs. non-survivors, and predictors of in-hospital outcomes. During the study period, 1,107 redo sternotomy aortic root replacements were performed (median age 59, 26% of patients were females). Eighty-four per cent of cases (N = 931) underwent a composite root replacement, 11% (N = 119) had homograft root replacement and valve-sparing root replacement was performed in 5.1% (N = 57) of cases. There was a steady increase in the volume of redo sternotomy root replacements beyond 2006, from an annual volume of 22 procedures in 2006 to 106 procedures in 2017. Hospital mortality was 17% (n = 192), postoperative stroke or TIA occurred in 5.2% (n = 58), and postoperative dialysis was required in 11% (n = 109) of patients. Return to the theatre for bleeding/tamponade was required in 9% (n = 102) and median in-hospital stay was 9 days. Age >59 (OR: 2.99, CI: 1.92-4.65, P < 0.001), recent myocardial infarction (OR: 6.42, CI: 2.24-18.41, P = 0.001) were associated with increased in-hospital mortality. Emergency surgery (OR: 3.95, 2.27-6.86, P < 0.001), surgery for endocarditis (OR: 2.05, CI: 1.26-3.33, P = 0.001), salvage coronary artery bypass grafting (OR: 2.20, CI: 1.37-3.54, P < 0.001), arch surgery (OR: 2.47, CI: 1.30-3.61, P = 0.018) and aortic cross-clamp longer than 169 min (OR: 2.17, CI: 1.00-1.01, P = 0.003) were associated with increased risk of mortality. We found no effect of the centre or surgeon volume on mortality (P > 0.05). Redo sternotomy aortic root replacement still carries significant morbidity and mortality and is sporadically performed across surgeons and centres in the UK.

Multicentre experience with valve-sparing aortic root replacement by means of combined remodelling and external aortic ring annuloplasty in patients with Marfan syndrome.

The most recent valve-sparing root replacement technique combines the advantages of the reimplantation (David) and remodelling (Yacoub) techniques. The aortic root is reconstructed according to the remodelling technique, the aortic valve is repaired according to the principle of effective height, and an external ring provides annular support. The purpose of this study was to evaluate operative and mid-term outcomes using this technique in patients with Marfan syndrome. Adult patients with Marfan syndrome who had an indication for aortic root surgery according to European Society of Cardiology guidelines and were operated on using this new root replacement technique were retrospectively evaluated. Follow-up was obtained from standard outpatient visits and included echocardiography. The study group comprised 22 patients (mean age 36 years, 68% males). Mean follow-up was 7.5 years. There were no mortalities. Two patients required aortic valve replacement because of aortic regurgitation. In both patients, the aortic root was severely dilated (≥65 mm) preoperatively, with grade III aortic valve regurgitation and aortic valve cusps that were very fragile. Aortic regurgitation was grade ≤I on follow-up in 18 of the remaining 20 patients. Valve-sparing root replacement using remodelling combined with aortic-ring annuloplasty is safe in patients with Marfan syndrome. The mid-term outcome is promising in patients undergoing elective valve-sparing root replacement at recommended root diameters. However, in patients with extremely dilated aortic roots and already severe aortic regurgitation, the technique should be used cautiously as aortic cusps are fragile and might not be suitable for durable repair. UMCG Research registry #11208.

Valve-sparing root replacement in children with connective tissue disease: Long-term risk of aortic events

BackgroundCardiovascular involvement in pediatric patients with connective tissue disease (CTD) is life-threatening, with aortic root dilatation being the most prevalent cardiovascular abnormality. We attempted to determine long-term outcomes of valve-sparing root replacement (VSRR) in this group, including cardiovascular reoperations for aortic aneurysm and dissection. MethodsWe conducted a retrospective analysis of pediatric patients with CTD who received VSRR in a single center from 2002 to 2021. The primary end point was a composite event of all-cause death and cardiovascular reoperations. The median follow-up duration was 8.3 years, with a maximum of 20.7 years. ResultsThe median age of 24 pediatric patients who had VSRR was 14.4 years. Marfan syndrome and Loeys–Dietz syndrome affected 19 (79.2%) and 5 (20.8%) patients, respectively. There was no early death. The 15-year survival rate was 91.7%. At 10 years after VSRR, the cumulative incidence of reoperation for aortic regurgitation was 15.6%, and for aortic aneurysm or dissection, it was 29.1%. The 10-year rate of freedom from the primary end point was 53.1%. The Cox multivariable analysis revealed younger age at surgery (hazard ratio, 1.279; 95% confidence interval, 1.086-1.505; P = .003) and VSRR before 13 years of age (hazard ratio, 5.005; 95% confidence interval, 1.146−21.850; P = .032) as independent prognostic factors for the primary endpoint. ConclusionsVSRR for aortic root dilatation in pediatric patients with CTD demonstrated good long-term survival and low reoperation rates for aortic regurgitation. However, several patients developed later aortic aneurysm or dissection, and careful surveillance may be required, particularly in those who received VSRR at younger age.

Outcomes of neo-aortic valve and root surgery late after arterial switch operation

BackgroundNeo-aortic root dilatation and valve regurgitation are emerging problems late after arterial switch operation (ASO). We sought to evaluate the prevalence and outcomes of neo-aortic root or valve reoperation after ASO. MethodsAll patients with biventricular circulation who underwent an ASO between 1983 and 2015 were included at a single institution. ResultsIn our cohort of 782 late ASO survivors, the median duration of follow-up was 18.1 years (interquartile range [IQR], 11.3-25.6 years). During follow-up, 47 patients (6.0%) underwent 60 reoperations on the neo-aortic valve/root. The first neo-aortic valve/root reoperation occurred at a median of 15.2 years (IQR, 7.8-18.4 years) after ASO. Operations included mechanical Bentall (31.9%; n = 15), aortic valve repair (25.5%; n = 12), mechanical aortic valve replacement (AVR) (21.3%; n = 10), valve-sparing root replacement (19.1%; n = 9), and the Ross procedure (2.1%; n = 1). There was 1 late death (2.1%). Multivariable predictors of neo-aortic valve/root reoperation were bicuspid valve (hazard ratio [HR], 4.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.1-10.7; P < .001), Taussig-Bing anomaly (HR, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.2-7.4; P < .02), previous pulmonary artery band (HR, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.2-6.3; P < .01) and left ventricular outflow tract obstruction before ASO (HR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.0-5.8; P < .04). Freedom from neo-aortic valve or root reoperation was 98.0% (95% CI, 96.7%-98.8%) at 10 years, 93.3% (95% CI, 90.8%-95.2%) at 20 years, and 88.5% (95% CI, 84.1%-91.8%) at 30 years after ASO. Among the 47 patients who underwent neo-aortic reoperation, freedom from AVR was 82.3% (95% CI, 67.7%-90.7%) at 10 years, 58.0% (95% CI, 41.8%-71.2%) at 20 years, and 43.2% (95% CI, 27.0%-58.3%) at 25 years after ASO. ConclusionsThe need for neo-aortic valve or root reoperation surpasses 10% by 30 years post-ASO. Evolving understanding of the mechanisms of neo-aortic valve insufficiency and techniques of neo-aortic valve repair may decrease the need for AVR.

Postoperative transthoracic echocardiography showing mild aortic regurgitation and successful valve-sparing root replacement.

Postoperative transthoracic echocardiography showing mild aortic regurgitation and successful valve-sparing root replacement.

Aortic valve visualization and pressurization device: a novel device for intraoperative evaluation of aortic valve repair procedures.

Aortic valve repair procedures are technically challenging, and current intraoperative evaluation methods often fail to predict the final echocardiographic result. We have developed a novel intraoperative aortic valve visualization and pressurization (AVP) device, enabling valve inspection under physiological conditions, and measuring aortic valve insufficiency (AI) during cardioplegic arrest. The AVP device is attached to the (neo)aorta, after any type of aortic valve repair, while the heart is arrested. The root is pressurized (60-80 mmHg) using a saline solution and an endoscope is introduced. The valve is inspected, and the amount of valvular leakage is measured. Postoperative 'gold standard' transesophageal echocardiogram measurements of AI are performed and compared against regurgitation volume measured. In 24 patients undergoing valve-sparing root replacement, the AVP device was used. In 22 patients, postoperative echocardiographic AI was ≤ grade 1. The median leakage was 90 ml/min, IQR 60-120 ml/min. In 3 patients, additional adjustments after visual inspection was performed. In 2 patients, with complex anatomy, the valve was replaced. In one, after evaluation with the device, there was undesirable result visually and residual AI of 330 ml/min, and in another, 260 ml/min residual AI was measured and valve restriction on visual inspection. The novel AVP device enables intraoperative evaluation of the valve under physiological conditions, while still on arrested heart, and allows for targeted adjustments. The AVP device can be an important aid for intraoperative evaluation of the aortic valve, during valve repair and valve-sparing procedures, thereby making the operative result more predictable and the operation more efficient.

Mitral annular disjunction on cardiac MRI: Prevalence and association with disease severity in Loeys-Dietz syndrome

BackgroundThe purpose of this study was to evaluate mitral annular disjunction (MAD) on cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in Loeys-Dietz Syndrome (LDS) and to explore its association with adverse outcomes. MethodsIn this retrospective cohort study, adult patients with LDS who underwent cardiac MRI were evaluated for MAD, aortic dimensions, and ventricular volumetry. Aortic events were defined as aortic surgery and/or dissection and severe arrhythmic events as cardiac arrest or sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT). ResultsAmong 46 LDS patients (52% female, 37.2 ± 14.3 years), 17 had MAD (37%). MAD and no MAD groups were similar in age, sex, aortic dimensions and left ventricular parameters. After a clinical follow-up of 4.3 years (IQR 1.5–8.4), 3 in MAD and 4 in no MAD groups required aortic valve sparing root replacement (VSRR) and 1 in MAD developed type A dissection. Over a similar imaging follow-up period [4.1 years (IQR 2.7–9.1) vs. 3.2 years (IQR 1.0–9.0), p = 0.65], compared to baseline, increase in native aortic root size was significant only in MAD (39.4 ± 4.6 mm vs. 38.1 ± 5.3 mm, p = 0.02, 19.3 ± 2.4 mm/m2 vs. 18.7 ± 2.4 mm/m2, p = 0.01) compared to those without MAD. Patients with MAD were younger at first aortic event compared to those without (26.7 ± 11.5 years vs. 45.0 ± 14.9 years, p = 0.03). MAD distance correlated with need for VSRR, r = 0.57, p = 0.02. Two patients in the MAD group developed sustained VT. No cardiac arrest or death was observed. ConclusionMAD is highly prevalent in LDS, associated with progressive aortic dilatation, and aortic events at younger age. MAD may be a marker of disease severity necessitating close surveillance.

Outcomes of aortic valve-sparing root replacement with cusp repair in connective tissue disease

BackgroundAlthough, valve sparing is commonly performed in patients with Marfan syndrome, feasibility and results of cusp repair for aortic insufficiency have not been studied. AimTo report on the outcomes and durability of aortic cusp repair in valve sparing in patients with Marfan syndrome. MethodsAll consecutive adult patients with Marfan syndrome who underwent remodelling and annuloplasty with aortic valve repair for aortic insufficiency between May 2005 and December 2020 were included. Patients with Marfan syndrome treated for aortic aneurysm, but without aortic insufficiency, were excluded. Data were collected prospectively and reviewed retrospectively from the Aorticvalve repair International Registry (AVIATOR). ResultsDuring the study period, 71 patients with Marfan syndrome were referred to surgery. Fifty-five patients with connective tissue disease and aortic insufficiency with aorta aneurysm were treated: 46 underwent aortic valve repair and nine underwent aortic valve replacement (five mechanical aortic valve replacements and four biological aortic valve replacements). The mean age was 42.9±15.4 years, and the mean EuroScore II was 2.5±2.2. No patient died, and no patient had significant aortic insufficiency (grade≥II) at discharge. The 5-year survival rate estimate was 94.4%, which seems statistically similar to that of the age- and sex-matched general population. At 5 years, freedom from reoperation was 94.6%, and the incidence of infective endocarditis was 2.6%. No valve thrombosis, aortic dissection, major bleeding events, thromboembolic events (stroke) or myocardial infarctions were noted during follow-up. ConclusionRemodelling and aortic valve repair showed excellent durability at 5 years, even in connective tissue disorders.

Valve-Sparing Neo-Aortic Root Replacement for Neo-Aortic Root Dilatation 20 Years after Arterial Switch Operation for Transposition of the Great Arteries: A Case Report.

A 25-year-old man returned to Seoul National University Children's Hospital with mild dyspnea on exertion. He had undergone an arterial switch operation at 1 month after birth to correct a complete transposition of the great arteries and a ventricular septal defect. When the patient was 15 years old, dilatation of the neo-aortic sinus and annulus was first identified; since then, it had gradually increased. Given the young age of the patient and the degree of aortic regurgitation (AR), which was mild to moderate, we opted to perform a valve-sparing neo-aortic root replacement with aortic valve repair. Postoperative echocardiography showed successful reductions in the sizes of the aortic sinus and annulus, with only mild AR remaining.

Valve Sparing vs Composite Valve Graft Root Replacement: Propensity Score–Matched Analysis

BackgroundBoth valve-sparing root replacement and composite valve graft (CVG) are acceptable options in aortic root replacement. We compare outcomes of these 2 approaches and durability of the aortic valve. MethodsA consecutive 1635 patients without acute dissection underwent primary aortic root replacement from 1997 to 2022; 473 (29%) underwent valve-sparing root replacement, and 1162 (71%) received CVG. Propensity score matching was used to reduce baseline differences. ResultsThe CVG group was older (59 ± 14 years vs 49 ± 14 years; P < .001) with more comorbidities, such as hypertension (88.4% vs 66.4%; P < .001), diabetes (7% vs 1.7%; P < .001), ischemic heart disease (5.1% vs 1.3%; P = .001), pulmonary disease (6.6% vs 1.3%; P < .001), renal impairment (8.6% vs 1.3%; P < .001), class III-IV heart failure (35% vs 9.2%; P < .001), bicuspid aortic valves (44.8% vs 24.1%; P < .001), and severe aortic insufficiency (50.2% vs 13.2%; P < .001). Operative mortality was 0.4% (0% in valve sparing); incidence of major postoperative complications was 2.9% (3.6% vs 1.1%; P = .009). Ten-year survival was 93.1% (91.2% vs 97.7%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.7; 95% CI, 0.9-3.3; P = .120). Mean follow-up was 65 ± 60 months; aortic valve reoperations were similar (5.8% vs 5.7%; HR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.4-1.4; P = .401). Recurrent moderate-severe aortic insufficiency was less prevalent in CVG (6.1% vs 11.1%; HR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.07-0.27; P < .001). Propensity score matching identified 225 pairs. There was no difference in 10-year survival or reoperations. Recurrent moderate-severe aortic insufficiency was higher with valve sparing. ConclusionsBoth valve-sparing operations and CVG provide excellent early and late outcomes out to 10 years. Valve sparing is associated with a higher risk for development of aortic insufficiency but no difference in reoperations.

Aortoscopy in pressurized aortic root during valve-sparing root replacement: A useful maneuver.

Aortoscopy in pressurized aortic root during valve-sparing root replacement: A useful maneuver.

Discussion to: Long-term durability of valve-sparing root replacement in patients with and without connective tissue disease

Discussion to: Long-term durability of valve-sparing root replacement in patients with and without connective tissue disease

Mid-Term Results of Aortic Valve Sparing Root Surgery Operations

Introduction: In this study, we retrospectively analyzed the mid-term outcomes of patients who underwent aortic valve-sparing root replacement (VSARR). Patients and Methods: Ninety-six patients operated on due to annuloaortic ectasia in our clinic between 2012 and 2016 were examined. Twenty-four patients who underwent VSARR were included in the study. They were evaluated using echocardiography and computed tomography in terms of mortality and reoperation according to their preoperative demographic characteristics, aortic regurgitation (AR), and annular dilatation levels. Results: The early mortality rate was 12.5% (n= 3) and was associated with emergency operation and total arch replacement. The mean follow-up was 33.00 ± 9.53 months. The early mortality rate was 12.5% (n= 3) and was associated with emergency surgery and total arch replacement (p= 0.035, p&lt; 0.05). The mean followup was 33.00 ± 9.53 months. None of the patients required reoperation. While postoperative AR was seen in one patient with Takayasu’s arteritis (n= 1, 4.16%), it was not observed in the patients with Marfan syndrome or bicuspid aortic valve disease. Postoperative AR and preoperative AR were related (p= 0.012, p&lt; 0.05), but preoperative annulus diameter was not (p= 0.296, p&gt; 0.05). There was no difference in valve durability between the use of Dacron and Valsalva grafts (p= 0.724, p&gt; 0.05). Conclusion: For patients with aortic root aneurysms, elective VSARR is a good surgical option. However, the presence of comorbidities is related to high mortality because it necessitates urgent and complicated surgery for patients with aortic dissection.

Valve-sparing aortic root replacement versus composite valve graft with bioprosthesis in patients under age 50

BackgroundAlthough the unique risks of implanting a prosthetic valve after aortic valve (AV) surgery in young patients are well established, studies of aortic root replacement (ARR) are lacking. We investigated long-term outcomes after valve-sparing root replacement (VSRR) versus the use of a composite valve graft with bioprosthesis (b-CVG) in patients age <50 years. MethodsA total of 543 patients age <50 years underwent VSRR (n = 335) or b-CVG (n = 208) between 2004 and 2021 from 2 aortic centers, excluding those with dissection or endocarditis. Endpoints included mortality over time, reoperative aortic valve replacement (AVR), and development of greater than moderate aortic insufficiency (AI) or aortic stenosis (AS). Fine and Gray competing risk regression was used to compare the risk of reintervention. Propensity score matching (PSM) balanced patient comorbidities, and landmark analysis isolated outcomes beginning 4 years postoperatively. ResultsCompared with VSRR, b-CVG was associated with lower 12-year survival (88.6% vs 92.9%; P = .036) and a higher rate of AV reintervention (37.6% vs 12.0%; P = .018). After PSM, survival was similar in the 2 arms (93.4% for b-CVG vs 93.0% for VSRR; P = .72). However, both Fine and Gray multivariable risk regression and PSM showed that b-CVG was independently associated with AV reintervention at >4 years postoperatively (Fine and Gray: subdistribution hazard ratio, 4.3 [95% confidence interval, 1.8-10.2; P = .001]; PSM: 35.7% for b-CVG versus 14.3% for VSRR; P = .024]). PSM rates of greater than moderate AI/AS at 10 years were more than 2-fold greater in the b-CVG arm compared with the VSRR arm (37.1% vs 15.9%; P = .571). Conclusionsb-CVG in young patients is associated with early valvular degeneration, with increasing rates of reoperative AVR occurring even within 10 years. In contrast, VSRR is durable with excellent survival. In eligible young patients, every effort should be made to retain the native AV.

Valve-sparing operations after Ross procedure: a single-center experience.

The Ross procedure has demonstrated excellent long-term results, with restoration of life-expectancy in patients with severe aortic valve dysfunction. However, reintervention after Ross can occur, and herein we describe our center's experience with redo surgery after previous Ross procedures. We searched our prospective database for aortic valve-repair and recruited all adult (≥18 years) patients who have undergone valve-sparing root replacements (VSRRs) and/or aortic valve-repair after Ross procedure between July 2001 and July 2022. Univariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify variables affecting early mortality. Survival, freedom-from-valve-reintervention and freedom-from-aortic regurgitation (AR) grade ≥3 were analyzed with the Kaplan-Meier method. A total of 63 patients were recruited for this study. Indication for reoperation after Ross was aortic aneurysm without AR in 17 (27%), aortic aneurysm with AR in 27 (43%), and isolated AR in 19 (30%) patients. Median follow-up time was 7.82 years. The majority of patients (76%) had undergone the free root technique during their index Ross operation. Cumulative survival, after redo surgery following Ross, was 98.4% [95% confidence interval (CI): 89.3-99.8%] at 1 year, 96.3% (95% CI: 88.2-98.3%) at 5 years, and 92.4% (95% CI: 87.1-98.0%) at 10 years. Freedom-from-reoperation on the aortic valve at 1 year was 98.4% (95% CI: 97.0-99.8%), at 5 years was 96.7% (95% CI: 87.6-99.0%), and 79.7% (95% CI: 71.1-88.3%) at 10 years. Long-term survival after redo surgery following the Ross operation is excellent. The data support our aggressive valve-sparing approach after Ross.

Bentall versus valve-sparing aortic root replacement for root pathology with moderate-to-severe aortic insufficiency: a propensity-matched analysis.

To examine short- and long-term outcomes of patients with moderate-to-severe aortic insufficiency (AI) undergoing either a Bentall aortic root replacement (ARR) or valve-sparing root replacement (VSRR). A two-centre retrospective database of patients undergoing ARR from 2004 to 2021 was reviewed. Patients <18 years old were excluded. A total of 1527 adult patients underwent Bentall ARR (n = 1150, 75%) or VSRR (n = 377, 25%). Propensity score matching based on preoperative comorbidities was used and 195 matched pairs were identified. Perioperative outcomes, reoperation rates, recurrence of AI and long-term survival were evaluated. ARR patients had more concomitant ascending aortic replacement (35% vs 20%, P = 0.002) and shorter cardiopulmonary bypass (189 vs 233 min, P < 0.0001) and aortic cross-clamp (170 vs 204 min, P < 0.0001) times than the VSRR group. Postoperatively, outcomes were similar between groups, including stroke (3% vs 2%) and in-hospital mortality (1.5% vs 2.1%), all P > 0.05. Indications for and rates of reoperation (4% vs 5%, P = 0.62) of the aortic valve and proximal aorta were similar between ARR and VSRR groups with reoperations occurring a mean of 3.2 years after initial root replacement. The ARR group had less moderate-to-severe AI than the VSRR group (1.6% vs 14%, P = 0.002) a mean of 3 years after surgery. Ten-year survival was similar between ARR (84%) and VSRR (82%) (P = 0.69) groups. Both ARR and VSRR can be performed with acceptable short- and long-term outcomes in patients with moderate-to-severe AI.