Valve-sparing Operations Research Articles

Free margin length and coaptation surface area in normal tricuspid aortic valve: an anatomical study.

Aortic cusp free margins are a central target in most aortic valve repair operations to optimize valve coaptation. The objective of this anatomical study was to analyse the normal dimensions of free margin length (FML) and coaptation surface and to analyse their relationship with other valve and root dimensions in normal tricuspid aortic valves. We analysed 25 aortic root homografts. Eight valve and root measurements were obtained from fresh specimens including the length of the free margin while applying appropriate tension on the structures. The valves were then fixed with formalin in the diastolic position under pressure to allow measurement of the coaptation surface. In addition to normal values, we analysed the correlations and ratios between the different measures. The mean FML was 34.3 ± 3.1 mm. The FML was similar between the 3 cusps and correlated with all other valve and root measures. The ratio of the FML to the geometric height was 1.81, and the free edge length/sinotubular junction was 1.29. The mean coaptation surface was 122 ± 21 mm2 per cusp and corresponded to 41% of the cusp surface. The central coaptation length was 3.3 ± 0.8 mm, and the lateral coaptation length was 5.9 ± 0.6 mm. The total coaptation surface per specimen was 184 ± 32 mm2. We described the normal dimensions of the FML and coaptation surface in the tricuspid aortic valve. These measurements will serve in the further development of an objective method of free margin shortening based on intraoperative measurements of the FML to treat cusp prolapse and low coaptation after valve-sparing surgery.

Valve-sparing aortic root surgery. CON: remodeling.

The two major valve-sparing root replacement procedures, aortic valve reimplantation (reimplantation) and aortic root remodeling (remodeling), have advantages and disadvantages, which are reviewed herein. The main advantage of reimplantation is the resulting annular support, and the disadvantages are the unfavorable hemodynamics and relatively long procedure time. The main advantages of remodeling are the physiological hemodynamics and decreased procedure time, and the disadvantage is the lack of annular support. With technical advances and modifications, however, the differences between these two procedures have narrowed. Application of a graft with sinuses for reimplantation improves the hemodynamics, and addition of annuloplasty to remodeling provides the necessary annular support. Nevertheless, remodeling has some advantages because less root dissection is required and the procedure time is shorter and hemodynamically favorable. Thus, remodeling may be the procedure of choice for high-risk patients (such as those with acute aortic dissection, of advanced age, with reduced ventricular function, or undergoing a concomitant operation). Remodeling may also be best for young athletes because of the hemodynamic advantage. Regardless of the advantages and disadvantages, both procedures provide excellent clinical results in terms of late valve durability. Surgeons should be familiar with both techniques and properly match patients to the appropriate treatment.

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.

Importance of Early Detection and Cardiovascular Surgical Intervention in Marfan Syndrome.

Marfan syndrome is an autosomal dominant connective tissue disorder that affects multiple systems, including the skeletal, ligamentous, oculofacial, pulmonary, abdominal, neurological, and cardiovascular systems. Cardiovascular complications, which involve the aorta and aortic valve, contribute most significantly to patient morbidity and mortality. A literature review was conducted on pathophysiology of the disease and recommendations for early diagnosis and treatment. Diagnosis largely relies on clinical features and a thorough history. Echocardiogram is used for monitoring aortic abnormalities and disease progression. Aortic valve-sparing surgery is indicated in any valvular abnormality and in patients with a murmur. Aortic root replacement is indicated prophylactically in women who want to give birth with diameters greater than 40 mm, anyone with a diameter greater than 50 mm, and progressive dilatation of greater than 5 mm per year. Medical management involves antihypertensive therapy. It is imperative for all health care providers to understand the clinical features, progression, and management of Marfan syndrome to appropriately care for their patients. Ensuring regular follow-up and adherence to medical and surgical prophylaxis is essential to patient well-being.

A nationwide survey of aortic valve surgery in Japan: current status of valve preservation in cases with aortic regurgitation.

Although aortic valve-sparing operations are performed throughout Japan, the indications, specific repair techniques, and outcomes have not been reported in full. Thus, we conducted the first nationwide survey of aortic valve-sparing surgery. We mailed a questionnaire to 508 institutions across Japan to obtain information on elective aortic valve and aortic root surgeries performed in 2014. Included in the mailing was a secondary questionnaire that sought further information from institutions reporting aortic valve-sparing surgeries. Two hundred and fifty (49%) institutions responded and reported a total of 7859 aortic valve operations and 771 aortic root operations. Aortic valve operations performed strictly for aortic regurgitation totaled 2080, 156 (8%) of which were aortic valve repairs. Of the 699 aortic root surgeries performed for aortic regurgitation, 236 (34%) were valve-sparing root replacement surgeries. The valve-sparing root replacement surgeries comprised aortic valve reimplantation (n=173, 73%) and aortic root remodeling (n=63, 27%). Five of 57 (9%) institutions were responsible for 42% (99/233) of the total aortic valve-sparing surgeries performed. Detailed information that was obtained for 233 patients who underwent aortic valve repair or valve-sparing root replacement showed 30-day mortality and reoperation for regurgitation after aortic valve repair (n=97), aortic root remodeling (n=37), and aortic valve reimplantation (n=99) to be 1, 0, and 1% and 3, 3, and 1%, respectively. To date, aortic valve-sparing operations have been performed for limited patients at limited institution in Japan, but the early outcomes have been excellent.

Reparación de prolapso de velo por rotura en válvula aórtica

IntroductionLeaflets prolapse causes a lack of central coaptation and increases tension excessively on them. This fact predisposes to their rupture. This video is presented in which an aortic valve sparing surgery is performed by rebuilding a broken and prolapsing leaflet as an alternative to prosthetic implant. Materials and methodsA 61 year-old patient with tricuspid aortic valve and aortic regurgitation grade iv due to a prolapse and rupture of right-coronary leaflet and dilated ascending aorta. A retrospective analysis was performed on 19 patients with aortic valve sparing surgery and an untreated aortic root (2011-2015). ResultsThe video shows an annuloplasty, broken leaflet reconstruction, prolapse elimination with central plications, supracoronary conduit implantation, and sinotubular junction annuloplasty. Aortic regurgitation was grade i after surgery.The retrospective analysis of the group showed a mean age of 64.3±16.9 years, of which 5 (26.3%) were women. The Logistic EuroSCORE was 9.4±7.6, and the EuroSCORE II was 3.9±3.1. The procedures performed included, supracoronary conduit+aortic plasty in 11 (58%) and an isolated aortic plasty in 8 (42%). Pre-operative aortic regurgitation grade was iii (36.8%) and iv (63.2%). There were 3 (15.8%) conversions to prosthesis. Mean follow-up was 25.4±11.4 months (median 27), with 81% free not requiring re-intervention, and 69% free from aortic regurgitation>ii. ConclusionsAortic valve repair without addressing the root is more complex, due to its dynamic changes, and it is less stable over time.

The role of neo-sinus reconstruction in aortic valve-sparing surgery.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical and echocardiographic results and the predictors of outcomes in patients undergoing valve-sparing operation (VSO) at two aortic centers. In addition, we sought to evaluate the potential effect of recreation of the sinuses of Valsalva (SV) on the outcome of valve-sparing procedures. During a 14-year period, 328 patients underwent aortic valve-sparing root replacement at two institutions. Clinical and echo evaluation was performed 6 months after surgery and every year thereafter or in case of clinical symptoms. Propensity weighting and propensity-weighted risk competing analysis were used. No operative mortality was reported; the most common complication was revision for bleeding, occurring in 15 patients (4.6%). At a mean follow-up of 30.0 ± 33.9 months, two patients died (0.6%). Recurrent aortic insufficiency (AI) >2+ was found in 11 patients (3.3%); five (1.5%) underwent reoperation. Recreation of the SV did not affect clinical outcome and aortic valve status. Need for aortic valve repair was the only independent predictor of recurrent AI, whereas a bicuspid aortic valve was a protective factor. Re-creation of the SV does not affect short-term outcomes following VSO.

Should the annulus be fixed in aortic valve-sparing root replacement with remodeling?

If the aortic root dilates after native aortic valve-sparing root reconstruction with remodeling, aortic regurgitation may recur. However, it has not been demonstrated clearly that the aortic root dilates after remodeling. This study enrolled 15 patients who underwent an aortic valve-sparing operation with remodeling (2002-2014) but without any ventriculo-aortic junction (VAJ) fixation. Technically, special care was taken to pass the sutures through the fibrous annulus. The diameter of the aortic root (VAJ, neosinus of Valsalva, and sinotubular junction), degree of aortic regurgitation, and effective height of the aortic valve were measured in the patients. All patients had postoperative follow-up, and the median follow-up period was 7.3 (IQR: 3.1-8.3)years. The mean preoperative diameters of the VAJ, sinus of Valsalva, and sinotubular junction were 23.5 ± 2.3 (20-27)mm, 51.1 ± 7.2 (43-60)mm, and 42.4 ± 9.4 (29-58)mm, respectively. The postoperative diameters of the VAJ changed from 21.6 ± 2.6 (early) to 21.8 ± 2.9mm (late) (p = 0.75). The diameters of the sinus of Valsalva and sinotubular junction changed from 26.5 ± 3.0 (early) to 28.5 ± 4.2mm (late) (p = 0.0013), and 22.4 ± 3.0 (early) to 24.3 ± 3.3mm (late) (p = 0.0003), respectively. The effective height of the aortic valve changed from 9.7 ± 1.3 (early) to 8.9 ± 2.0mm (late) (p = 0.08). The degree of aortic regurgitation (grade: 0-4) changed from 0.3 ± 0.5 (early) to 1.2 ± 0.8 (late) (p = 01558). Significant VAJ dilation and changes in aortic valve configuration after our remodeling procedure were not observed. Therefore, fixation of the annulus with remodeling may not be needed for cases without preoperative dilation of the annulus.

Biological solutions to aortic root replacement: valve-sparing versus bioprosthetic conduit‡.

Valve-sparing operations and root replacement with a biologic composite conduit are viable options in aortic root aneurysm. This study was conceived to compare the early and mid-term results of these 2 procedures. From September 2002 to November 2015, 749 consecutive patients underwent either a valve-sparing operation or a root replacement with a biologic composite conduit at 2 institutions. Propensity score matching was used to compare similar cohorts of patients in the overall population and in the ≤ 55 and ≥ 65-year age groups. Overall operative mortality was 0.4%, mean age 57.4 ± 14.3 years, 84.6% were male. Individuals in the biologic composite conduit group were older and had worse preoperative risk profiles [chronic pulmonary disease (5.5% vs 0.9%; P = 0.001), diabetes (6.4% vs 1.5%; P = 0.001) and NYHA > 2 (25.2% vs 5.2%; P < 0.001)]. Mean follow-up was 27.5 ± 28.4 months. In the unmatched population, there was no difference in in-hospital deaths (0 in the valve-sparing versus 3 in the biologic composite conduit group; P = 0.12). These findings were confirmed in the propensity-matched populations. During follow-up, more patients in the biologic composite conduit group underwent reoperation on the aortic valve (2.6% vs 1.5%; P = 0.026) resulting in a freedom from reoperation of 97.4% vs 98.5%, respectively. Separate analysis for patients stratified by age revealed no difference in outcomes. In case of aortic root aneurysm, both valve-sparing operations and root replacement with a biologic composite conduit provide excellent outcomes. However, at mid-term follow-up the use of biologic composite conduit is associated with a higher risk of reoperation.

Does aortic valve repair in valve-sparing aortic root reconstruction compromise the longevity of the procedure?

OBJECTIVES:The effect of performing aortic valve repair in combination with valve-sparing operation on the length of time for which patients are free from reoperation is unclear. The objective of this study was to determine if the performance of aortic valve repair during valve-sparing operation modified the freedom from reoperation time.METHODS:From January 2003 to July 2014, 78 patients with a mean age of 49±15 years underwent valve-sparing operation. Sixty-eight percent of these patients were male. Twenty-two (28%) aortic valve repair procedures were performed in this patient population. In the aortic valve repair + valve-sparing operation group, 77.3% of patients had moderate/severe aortic insufficiency, while in the valve-sparing operation group, 58.6% of patients had moderate/severe aortic insufficiency (ns = not significant). Additionally, 13.6% of patients in the aortic valve repair + valve-sparing operation group had functional class III/IV, while 14.2% of patients in the valve-sparing operation group had functional class III/IV (ns).RESULTS:The in-hospital and late mortality rates, for the aortic valve repair + valve-sparing operation and valve-sparing operation groups were similar, as they were 4.5% and 3.6%; and 0% and 1.8%, respectively. In the aortic valve repair + valve-sparing operation group, 0% of patients presented moderate/severe aortic insufficiency during late follow-up, while in the valve-sparing operation group, 14.2% of patients presented with moderate/severe aortic insufficiency during this period (ns). In the aortic valve repair + valve-sparing operation group, 5.3% of patients presented with functional class III/IV, while in the valve-sparing operation group, 4.2% of patients presented with functional class III/IV (ns). In the aortic valve repair + valve-sparing operation group, 0% of patients required reoperation, while in the valve-sparing operation group, 3.6% of patients required reoperation over a mean follow-up period of 1621±1156 days (75 patients).CONCLUSION:Valve-sparing operation is a safe and long-lasting procedure and performance of aortic valve repair when necessary does not increase risk of reoperation on the aortic valve.

Different modalities of aortic root reconstruction with aortic valve-sparing techniques in ascending aortic aneurysms

Objectives The aim of the study was to study the different types of valve-sparing aortic root reconstruction techniques to assess the short-term results with respect to improvement of patient's functional status, left ventricular dimensions and functions, and durability of competent aortic valve and to detect predictors of failure of aortic repair. Background The focus on valve-sparing operations and the concomitant re-evaluation of the functional anatomy of the aortic root have demonstrated that aortic root deformation often coexists with architecturally and morphologically normal valve leaflets. Thus, sparing and realigning the leaflets and reconstructing the aortic root have the potential for avoiding prosthetic valve disease. Materials and methods This was a prospective analytical study conducted on 50 consecutive patients with aortic root aneurysm and dissection associated with significant aortic regurgitation. These patients were operated upon using aortic valve reimplantation technique and studied for aortic valve competence. Results Follow-up echocardiography was performed within 30 days postoperative, after 6 months, 1 year, and then yearly. Moderate aortic incompetence was found in four patients (P = 0.001) at 1 year, with 100% freedom from reintervention for valve-related problems. Conclusion Valve-sparing aortic root reimplantation (Tirone-David technique) is effective in correcting aortic insufficiency due to aortic root diseases, with good results with respect to durability of aortic repair.

Invited Commentary

Invited Commentary

Cardiovascular operations for Loeys-Dietz syndrome: Intermediate-term results

ObjectivesEarly experience with Loeys-Dietz syndrome (LDS) suggested an aggressive aortopathy with high risk of aneurysm dissection and rupture at young ages and at smaller aortic diameters than in other connective tissue disorders. We reviewed our experience with LDS to re-examine our indications and outcomes of surgical management. MethodsWe reviewed all patients with a diagnosis of LDS who underwent cardiovascular surgery at our institution. The primary endpoint was mortality, and secondary endpoints included postoperative complications and need for reintervention. ResultsSeventy-nine operated patients with LDS were identified. Mean age at first operation was 25 years, 39 (49%) were female, and 38 (48%) were children (age <18 years). Six (8%) patients presented with acute dissection. Five (6%) patients had a bicuspid aortic valve, and all presented with an ascending aortic aneurysm with a mean root diameter of 3.5cm. Twenty (25%) patients had a previous sternotomy. Sixty-five (82%) patients underwent aortic root replacement, of whom 52 underwent a valve-sparing operation and 4 had concomitant arch replacement. Mean aortic root diameter in this group was 4.2 cm. Nine (11%) patients underwent aortic arch replacement, 2 (3%) had isolated ascending aorta replacement, and 3 (4%) underwent open thoracoabdominal repair. There were 2 (3%) operative and 8 late deaths. Nineteen patients underwent subsequent operations for late aneurysm and/or dissection. Mean follow-up was 6 years (range 0-24 years). Kaplan-Meier survival was 88% at 10 years. ConclusionsGrowing experience with LDS has confirmed early impressions of its aggressive nature and proclivity toward aortic catastrophe. Surgical outcomes are favorable, but reintervention rates are high. Meticulous follow-up with cardiovascular surveillance imaging remain important for management, particularly as clinical LDS subtypes are characterized and more tailored treatment is developed.

Valve-Sparing Root Replacement Compared With Composite Valve Graft Procedures in Patients With Aortic Root Dilation

BackgroundAlthough aortic valve-sparing (AVS) operations are established alternatives to composite valve graft (CVG) procedures for patients with aortic root aneurysms, comparative long-term outcomes are lacking. ObjectivesThis study sought to compare the results of patients undergoing AVS procedures with those undergoing CVG operations. MethodsFrom 1990 to 2010, a total of 616 patients age <70 years and without aortic stenosis underwent elective aortic root surgery (AVS, n = 253; CVG with a bioprosthesis [bio-CVG], n = 180; CVG with a mechanical prosthesis [m-CVG], n = 183). A propensity score was used as a covariate to adjust for unbalanced variables in group comparisons. Mean age was 46 ± 14 years, 83.3% were male, and mean follow-up was 9.8 ± 5.3 years. ResultsPatients undergoing AVS had higher rates of Marfan syndrome and lower rates of bicuspid aortic valve than those undergoing bio-CVG or m-CVG procedures. In-hospital mortality (0.3%) and stroke rate (1.3%) were similar among groups. After adjusting for clinical covariates, both bio-CVG and m-CVG procedures were associated with increased long-term major adverse valve-related events compared with patients undergoing AVS (hazard ratio [HR]: 3.4, p = 0.005; and HR: 5.2, p < 0.001, respectively). They were also associated with increased cardiac mortality (HR: 7.0, p = 0.001; and HR: 6.4, p = 0.003). Furthermore, bio-CVG procedures were associated with increased risk of reoperations (HR: 6.9; p = 0.003), and m-CVG procedures were associated with increased risk of anticoagulant-related hemorrhage (HR: 5.6; p = 0.008) compared with AVS procedures. ConclusionsThis comparative study showed that AVS procedures were associated with reduced cardiac mortality and valve-related complications when compared with bio-CVG and m-CVG. AVS is the treatment of choice for young patients with aortic root aneurysm and normal or near-normal aortic cusps.

Aortic root reimplantation procedure: a new milestone in aortic valve-sparing operations

&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Aim:&lt;/strong&gt; Emphasis in this study was placed on clinical and functional assessment of a modified "Florida Sleeve" procedure during surgical correction of ascending aorta aneurysms with concomitant aortic insufficiency.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Methods:&lt;/strong&gt; 32 patients with an aneurysm of the ascending aorta and aortic insufficiency underwent a modified "Florida Sleeve" procedure. The average follow-up was 17 (0-60) months. The average age of patients was 57±13 (23-73) years 56±13 years.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Results:&lt;/strong&gt; The expected 4-year cumulative survival rate was 84.3%. Overall freedom from aortic insufficiency in the late period was 88.9%. Median aortic regurgitation was 1+ (1; 2). Long-term follow-up revealed no valve-associated complications.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusion:&lt;/strong&gt; The aortic root reimplantation procedure enables optimal correction of the existing lesions of the aortic root without performing aortic valve replacement and demonstrates stable clinical and functional outcomes in the long-term period.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Key words:&lt;/strong&gt; aortic aneurysm; aortic valve; valve-sparing operations.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Funding&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The study had no sponsorship.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conflict of interest&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The authors declare no conflict of interest.&lt;/p&gt;

Choosing aortic valve plasty for aortic root/ascending aorta repair

&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Aim:&lt;/strong&gt; The study was designed to evaluate the outcomes of aortic valve reimplantation (David procedure), as well as various techniques of aortic root reconstruction.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Methods:&lt;/strong&gt; The results of 84 valve-sparing operations for thoracic aortic aneurysms and dissections were analyzed at B. Petrovsky Russian Research Center of Surgery over a period from 2007 to 2016. The first group (n = 42) consisted of patients after David procedure, the second group (n = 38) included patients after different methods of aortic root repair (fixation of commissures, leaflets plication, sinotubular ridge repair). 5-year results of surgical treatment were assessed.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Results:&lt;/strong&gt; David procedure is characterized by good long-term results. There was no in-hospital and 5-year mortality in the first group, while 2 (5.3%) patients in the second group died in the early postoperative period. In both groups the reoperation rate was 2.4% and 8.3% respectively.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusion:&lt;/strong&gt; Valve-sparing aortic root repair is characterized by good survival rate, high freedom from reoperation and low incidence of complications.&lt;/p&gt;

Long-term results of external aortic ring annuloplasty for aortic valve repair.

An untreated dilated aortic annulus is a major risk factor for failure of aortic valve-sparing operations or repair of either bicuspid or tricuspid valve. Aortic annuloplasty efficiently reduces the annulus and increases the coaptation height, thus protecting the repair. This study analyses long-term results of 232 consecutive patients operated on with a standardized and physiological approach to aortic valve repair according to each phenotype of the dystrophic ascending aorta. Subvalvular aortic annuloplasty was systematically added using an external aortic ring to reduce annulus diameter when ≥25 mm. Data were collected into the multicentric international AVIATOR registry (AorticValve repair InternATiOnal Registry): 149 patients with root aneurysm underwent remodelling with an external ring; 21 patients with tubular aortic aneurysm underwent supracoronary grafts with an external open ring and 62 patients with isolated aortic insufficiency (AI) underwent double sub- and/or supravalvular external open ring annuloplasty. Preoperative AI ≥ Grade III was present in 58.6% (133), and the valve was bicuspid in 37.9% (88). Cusp repair was performed in 75.4% (175) patients. The 30-day operative mortality rate was 1.4% (3). The mean follow-up was 40.1 ± 37.8 months (0-145.5). The actuarial survival rate at 7 years was 89.9%. The rate of freedom from reoperation at 7 years was similar among each phenotype, being 90.5% for root aneurysms, 100% for tubular aortic aneurysms and 97.5% for isolated AI with no difference between the bicuspid and tricuspid valve. The rates of freedom from AI ≥ Grade 2 and from AI ≥ Grade 3 at 7 years were, respectively, 76.0 and 93.1% for root aneurysms, 92.9 and 100% for tubular aortic aneurysms and 57.3 and 82.2% for isolated AI. Eye balling repair achieved suboptimal valve competency when compared with systematic cusp effective height assessment, which tended to improve the rate freedom from reoperation, respectively, from 85.8 ± 5.5% to 98.9 ± 1.1% and the rate of freedom from AI ≥ Grade 3 from 89.8 ± 4.9% to 100%. For isolated AI, an additional sinotubular junction ring (double sub- and supravalvular annuloplasty) tended to reduce recurrent AI when compared with single subvalvular annuloplasty. External aortic ring annuloplasty provides a reproducible technique for aortic valve repair with satisfactory long-term results for each ascending aorta phenotype with bicuspid or tricuspid valve. Longer follow-up is ongoing with the AVIATOR registry.

Valve-sparing root replacement in children.

In children, words of caution have been raised about valve-sparing procedures especially regarding the valve-remodelling technique. This study reviewed our experience with the valve-sparing reimplantation technique in children. All consecutive paediatric (<18 years) patients who underwent valve-sparing root replacement in our centre in the past 12.5 years were retrospectively analysed. Nineteen patients (median age 13.2 years, 10 months to 17.9 years) underwent valve-sparing root replacement using the reimplantation technique. Seventeen had connective tissue disease. An adult-sized vascular prosthesis could be implanted in all cases. Additional cusp repair was required in 3 patients. Follow-up was 4.4 ± 3.8 years. There was no perioperative mortality and one late death. Of the 3 patients that needed cusp repair, 1 developed Grade 3 aortic valve regurgitation (AR) and required aortic valve replacement and 2 had Grade 1 AR. Ninety-four percent of the other patients had Grade 0 AR at latest follow-up, 1 patient (6%) had Grade 1 AR. Our data show that valve-sparing root surgery using the reimplantation technique can be performed safely in children. Mid-term follow-up yields stable and favourable results. When leaflet reconstruction is necessary on top of the reimplantation procedure, rate of recurrent AR seems to be higher.

Single-centre experience in surgery of acute aortic type A dissection and true aortic arch aneurysm

Surgery of the aortic arch is challenging. To assess the results of aortic arch surgery. Analysis of 172 patients operated on arch dissection (emergency group: 97 patients) or aneurysm (elective group: 75 patients) between 2007 and 2014. Arch surgery was defined as a procedure requiring circumferential anastomosis at the level of the aortic arch or the descending aorta with the use of techniques of brain protection (deep hypothermic circulatory arrest [DHCA] or selective antegrade cerebral perfusion [SACP]) and/or debranching of at least one supra-aortic vessel. Men predominated in both groups (> 70%). Men were younger in the emergency group (55 vs. 66 years; p < 0.008). The operative risk was higher in the emergency group (19.2% vs. 12.5%; p < 0.001). Forty-nine per cent of the patients from the emergency group and 5% from the elective group were operated with antiplatelet therapy (p < 0.001). Extended hemiarch procedure was performed in 79% (n = 77) in the emergency and 76% (n = 57) in the elective group. Total arch replacement was performed in 19 (21%) patients from the emergency and 18 (24%) patients from the elective group. In these patients debranching was performed in 68% of the emergency patients group and in 67% of the elective group. Elephant trunk procedure (classic/frozen) was performed in 53% (n = 10) from the emergency and in 78% (n = 14) of patients from the elective group. Aortic valve sparing surgery was performed in 20% of patients from the emergency and 9% from the elective group (p = 0.063). DHCA was performed in 58% (n = 43) of patients from the elective group and 39% (n = 37) from the emergency group. SACP was performed in 61% (n = 58) of patients from the emergency and 42% (n = 31) from the elective group. Thirty-day mortality in the emergency group reached 33% (n = 32), and in the elective group 15% (n = 11; p = 0.007). In multivariate analysis, predictors of death in the emergency group were: Logistic EuroSCORE above 19.5%, extracorporeal circulation time above 228 min, and postoperative acute renal failure (ARF); and in the elective group: DHCA time above 26 min, rethoracotomy due to bleeding, and ARF. Follow-up was completed in 100% of patients in terms of vital status. The mean follow-up time of the patients from the emergency group was 24.3 ± 27.10 (min 0, max 92) months, and from the elective group 30.3 ± 24.5 (min 0, max 99) months. During the follow-up period all-cause mortality in the emergency group was 43% (n = 42/97), and in the elective group it was 36% (n = 27/75). Early mortality in the emergency group was higher, while long-term mortality did not differ among the groups. Postoperative ARF is a critical predictor of mortality in both groups.

Acute aortic dissection involving the root: operative and long-term outcome after curative proximal repair.

The aim of the study was to evaluate operative and long-term results after surgery of acute aortic dissection involving the root, in which the proximal repair consisted of curative resection of all dissected aortic sinuses and was performed using either valve-sparing root repair or complete root replacement with a valve conduit. Between August 2002 and March 2013, 162 consecutive patients (mean age 63 ± 14 years) underwent surgery for acute type A aortic dissection. Eighty-six patients with an involvement of the aortic root underwent curative surgery of the proximal aorta consisting of valve-sparing root repair (n = 54, 62.8%) or complete valve and root replacement using composite valve grafts (n = 32, 37.2%). In patients with root repair, all dissected aortic walls were resected and root remodelling using the single patch technique (n = 53) or root repair with valve reimplantation (n = 1) was performed without the use of any glue. All perioperative data were collected prospectively and retrospective statistical examination was performed using univariate and multivariate analyses. The mean follow-up was 5.2 ± 3.5 years for all patients (range 0-12 years) and 6.1 ± 3.3 years for survivors. The 30-day mortality rate was 5.8% (5 patients), being considerably lower in the repair sub-cohort (1.9 vs 12.5%). The estimated survival rate at 5 and 10 years was 80.0 ± 4.5 and 69.1 ± 6.7%, respectively. No patient required reoperation on the proximal aorta and/or aortic valve during the follow-up time and there were only two valve-related events (both embolic, one in each group). Among those patients with repaired valves, the last echocardiography available showed no insufficiency in 40 and an irrelevant insufficiency (1+) in 14. Curative repair of the proximal aorta in acute dissection involving the root provides favourable operative and long-term outcome with very low risk of aortic complications and/or reoperations, regardless if a valve-sparing procedure or replacement with a valve conduit is used. Valve-sparing surgery is frequently suitable, providing excellent outcome and very high durability.