Early results of valve-sparing aortic root replacement in high-risk clinical scenarios

Long-term outcomes comparison of Bentall-De Bono-versus valve-sparing aortic root replacement: An updated systematic review and reconstructed time-to-event meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

For patients with aortic root dilatation and a structurally normal aortic valve (AV) undergoing composite aortic valve-graft (Bentall-De Bono) versus valve-sparing aortic root replacement (VSARR) procedures there are conflicting data regarding early and long-term benefits. We undertook a study-level meta-analysis to compare the results of both procedures.

METHODS

Three databases were assessed, and both randomized trials and observational studies were considered eligible. Kaplan-Meier curves of long-term survival and reoperation risk were reconstructed and compared with Cox linear regression and incidence rate ratios (IRR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CI). Landmark analysis and time-varying hazard ratio (HR) were analyzed. Odds ratios (OR) were calculated for early mortality, postoperative stroke, and re-exploration for postoperative bleeding. A random effects model was used. Sensitivity analyses included leave-one-out-analysis, meta-regression and subgroups analysis.

RESULTS

1456 articles were identified, including 39 observational studies, totaling 14,651 patients (Bentall-De Bono = 9557 and VSARR = 5094). Twelve studies were adjusted. The mean weighted follow-up was 5.05 ± 3.7 years. VSARR was associated with significantly greater survival (HR = 0.50; 95 % CI, 0.45-0.57; p < 0.0001) at 15-year follow-up. The reoperation risk was higher following VSARR (HR = 1.30; 95 % CI, 1.03-1.63; p = 0.02.), although time-varying HR model and landmark analysis reported an increased risk of reoperation within 5 years after VSARR (HR = 1.57; 95 % CI, 1.23-2.01; p < 0.001), after which the difference disappeared. Subgroups analysis of studies excluding aortic dissection showed a comparable rate of late reoperation.

CONCLUSIONS

VSARR is associated with improved long-term survival compared to Bentall-De Bono. The risk of late reoperation is higher within 5 years following VSARR, after which the two procedures are comparable.

Reintervention after valve-sparing aortic root replacement: A comprehensive analysis of 781 David V procedures

OBJECTIVE

Studies of reintervention after valve-sparing aortic root replacement (VSRR) are limited by sample size and failure to evaluate all types of reinterventions, including distal aorta and transcatheter interventions. In this report, reintervention after VSRR using a large patient cohort was comprehensively analyzed.

METHODS

In a series involving 2 academic aortic centers, 781 consecutive patients from 2005 to 2020 undergoing David V VSRR for aortic aneurysm (91%) or dissection (9%) were included. Median age was 50 years, and 23% had a bicuspid aortic valve (AV). Median follow-up was 7.0 years. Open or transcatheter reintervention on the AV, proximal, or distal thoracic aorta was identified. Cumulative incidence was calculated, and subdistribution hazard models identified factors associated with reintervention. Time-dependent incidence of reintervention was plotted using risk-hazard functions.

RESULTS

Sixty-eight reinterventions (57 open, 11 transcatheter) were performed. Reinterventions were divided by indication into degenerative AV (n = 26, including 1 transcatheter aortic valve replacement), endocarditis (n = 11), proximal aorta (n = 8), and distal aorta (n = 23, including 10 thoracic endovascular aortic repairs). Risk of reintervention for endocarditis peaked 1 to 3 years after VSRR, whereas other indications had stable, low rates of occurrence throughout the follow-up period. The cumulative incidence of reintervention was 12.5% whereas the cumulative incidence of AV reintervention was 7.0% at 10 years and was associated with residual postoperative aortic insufficiency. In-hospital mortality after reintervention was 3%.

CONCLUSIONS

Reintervention rates after VSRR are relatively low in long-term follow-up and can be performed with acceptable operative risk. The majority of reinterventions are performed for indications other than AV degeneration, with the timing of reintervention varying by the specific clinical indication.

Comparison of the Bentall procedure versus valve-sparing aortic root replacement

Bentall and valve-sparing root replacement (VSRR) procedures are established treatments for aortic root disease. We present a single-center retrospective analysis comparing outcomes of bioprosthetic Bentall (BB), mechanical Bentall (MB), and VSRR patients from November 2007 to October 2016. Survival analysis was performed to evaluate the composite endpoint of freedom from recurrent aortic insufficiency, reoperation, or death. Of the 170 patients, BB was performed in 36 patients, MB in 63 patients, and VSRR in 71 patients. For BB, MB, and VSRR, the mean age was 63.8, 45.5, and 49.2 years (P < 0.001), respectively. Additionally, significantly more patients in the MB group (n = 32, 50.8%, P < 0.001) than in the BB and VSRR groups had prior cardiac surgeries. Cardiopulmonary bypass time and cross-clamp time were significantly longer in the VSRR group (P = 0.04 and 0.0005, respectively). Despite the complexity of the procedure, VSRR patients had higher combined freedom from death and reoperation than patients in the BB or MB groups. Elective Bentall root replacement is an excellent option for patients with root disease. Patients undergoing Bentall tend to have more severe or emergent cases, making them unlikely candidates for VSRR. VSRR in experienced centers carries equivalent morbidity and mortality and improved survival.

Short-term results of flanged Bentall de Bono and valve-sparing David V procedures for the treatment of aortic root aneurysms

Aim

Even though the Bentall de Bono procedure is widely used for the treatment of aortic root aneurysms, the procedure is under scrutiny nowadays because of complications due to mechanical prosthetic valves and the need for life-long anticoagulation. Due to these complications, aortic valvesparing operations are being researched. In this study we compared the short-term morbidity and mortality rates of both Bentall de Bono and valve-sparing David V procedures.

Methods

We retrospectively evaluated data from 70 patients who had undergone surgery for aortic root aneurysm between April 2009 and June 2013. We had performed the Bentall de Bono procedure on 46 patients and the David V procedure on 24 patients. Mortality rates, cardpulmonary bypass (CPB) and aortic cross-clamp durations, postoperative arrhythmias, and prolonged intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital stays were compared in this study.

Results

There was no statistical difference for mortality rate (p = 0.57), while the CPB time and cross-clamp duration were shorter in the Bentall group. When we compared the length of ICU and hospital stay, we observed that the David group stayed longer in ICU (p = 0.003) but the duration of hospital stay was shorter (p = 0.007).

Conclusion

Despite Bentall de Bono being the most commonly used procedure, the short-, mid- and long-term results of both procedures were similar. Spared native aortic valve and lack of anticoagulation usage are notable advantages of the David V procedure.

Clinical outcomes of combined aortic root reimplantation technique and total arch replacement

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this study was to evaluate early and late outcomes of combined valve-sparing aortic root replacement and total arch replacement (TAR).

METHODS

From October 1999 to May 2014, 195 patients underwent valve-sparing operations using the David reimplantation technique. Thirty-one patients underwent combined TAR for aortic regurgitation (AR) with extended aortic aneurysm from the aortic root to the aortic arch. Aetiologies included acute type A aortic dissection in 12 cases, chronic aortic dissection in 8 cases and non-dissecting aneurysm in 11 cases. There were 9 patients with Marfan syndrome. The preoperative severity of AR was mild in 4, moderate in 16 and severe in 11. Even though half of those were emergent operations for acute aortic dissection, preoperative haemodynamic conditions were stable in all patients.

RESULTS

No hospital deaths occurred. Postoperative complications included prolonged mechanical ventilation (>48 h) in 1 case and re-exploration for bleeding in 2 cases. Other complications, such as neurological dysfunction or low cardiac output syndrome, were not observed. At hospital discharge, 2 patients had mild AR, 22 had trace AR and 7 had no AR. During follow-up, 2 patients had moderate AR, 7 had mild AR, 18 had trace AR and 3 had no AR. Follow-up was completed in 95.1% of patients, and the mean follow-up period was 60.5 ± 9.1 months. No late death and thromboembolic complication occurred during follow-up. One patient required reoperation for AR. Freedom from reoperation at 5 and 10 years was 100 ± 0 and 83.3 ± 3.5%, respectively. Freedom from moderate or severe AR at 3 and 5 years was 83.3 ± 3.5 and 83.3 ± 3.5%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Early outcomes of combined aortic root reimplantation and TAR were satisfactory and provided excellent freedom from thromboembolic complication. The rate of freedom from reoperation during long-term follow-up was acceptable. Further follow-up is required to evaluate this procedure.

Repair of aortic root in patients with aneurysm or dissection: comparing the outcomes of valve-sparing root replacement with those from the Bentall procedure

INTRODUCTION

Management of aortic root aneurysm or dissection has been the subject of much discussion that has led to some modifications. The current trend is a valve-sparing root replacement. We compared the outcome following valve sparing root repair with Bentall procedure.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated 70 patients who underwent root replacement for aneurysm or dissection and compared the outcomes of valve-sparing root replacement with those of the Bentall procedure from January 2007 to December 2011 at our institution.

RESULTS

Twenty-five patients had valve-sparing aortic root replacement (VSR, including reimplantation or remodeling) (23 males and 2 females), and 45 patients had the Bentall procedure (34 males and 11 females). Patients who underwent a VSR were younger with a mean age of 55.4 ± 14.8 years compared to those who underwent the Bentall procedure with a mean age of 60.6 ± 12.7 (P=ns). The preoperative aortic insufficiency (AI) in the VSR group was moderate in 8 (32%) patients, and severe in 6 (24%). Preoperative creatinine was 1 ± 0.35 mg/dl in the VSR group and 1.1 ± 0.87 mg/dl in the Bentall group. In the VSR group, 3 (12%) patients had emergency surgery; by contrast, in the Bentall group, 8 (17%) patients had emergent surgery. Concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting (excluding coronary reimplantation) was performed in 8 (32%) patients in the VSR group and in 12 (26.6%) patients in the Bentall group (P=0.78); additional valve procedures were performed in 2 (8%) patients in the VSR group and in 11 (24.4%) patients in the Bentall group. The perioperative mortality was 8% (n=2) and 13.3% (n=6), for the VSR and Bentall procedures, respectively (P=0.7, ns). The total duration of intensive care unit stay was 116.6 ± 106 hours for VSR patients and 152.5 ± 218.2 hours for Bentall patients (P=0.5). The overall length of stay in the hospital was 10 ± 8.1 days for VSR and 11 ± 9.52 days for Bentall (P=0.89). The one-year survival was 92% for the VSR group and 79.0% for the Bentall group. The seven-year survival for the VSR group was 92% and 79% for the Bentall group (95% CI [1.215 to 0.1275], P=0.1).

CONCLUSION

Aortic valve-sparing root replacement can be performed with acceptable morbidity and mortality with a comparable long-term survival to the Bentall procedure.

Mortality characteristics of aortic root surgery in North America

OBJECTIVES

Aortic root surgery is transitioning to aortic valve sparing (AVS), but little is known about the relative early outcomes of AVS versus composite graft-valve replacement (CVR). This study assessed mortality differences for AVS versus CVR to guide future practice decisions.

METHODS

From January 2000 to June 2011, 31 747 patients had aortic root replacement with AVS (n = 3585; 11%) or CVR (n = 28 162; 89%). The cohort of Overall patients was divided into two subgroups: high-risk patients (n = 20 356; 6% AVS) having age >75 years, endocarditis, aortic stenosis, dialysis, multiple valves, reoperation or emergency/salvage status, and the remaining low-risk patients (n = 11 388; 21% AVS). Using logistic regression analysis, outcomes were presented as unadjusted operative mortality (UOM), risk-adjusted operative mortality (AOM) and adjusted odds ratio (AOR) for mortality.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics for the Overall group (AVS versus CVR) were: mean age (52 vs 57 years), endocarditis (1 vs 11%), aortic stenosis (4 vs 36%), dialysis (1 vs 2%), multiple valves (7 vs 10%), reoperation (6 vs 17%) and emergency status (14 vs 12%) (all P < 0.0001). In high- and low-risk groups, baseline differences narrowed, and lower mortality was generally observed with AVS: (AVS versus CVR) UOM group Overall (4.5 vs 8.9%)*, group High-risk (10.5 vs 11.7%), group Low-risk (1.4 vs 3.1%)*; AOM group Overall (6.2 vs 8.6%), group High-risk (10.1 vs 11.7%), group Low-risk (2.2 vs 2.8%); AOR group Overall (0.59)*, group High-risk (0.62)*, group Low-risk (0.69). *P < 0.05.

CONCLUSIONS

Relative risk-adjusted mortality seemed comparable with AVS versus CVR in low- and high-risk subgroups. These data support judicious expansion of aortic valve repair in patients having aortic root replacement.

Perioperative transesophageal echocardiography for aortic dissection

PURPOSE

Aortic dissection is an infrequent but serious condition that often requires immediate operative intervention. We explore recent developments in the classification of aortic dissection and perioperative transesophageal echocardiography that assist with quantifying the severity of disease and facilitate its management.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

We describe the pivotal role of echocardiography in relation to key surgical considerations such as cannulation, aortic root surgery, perfusion in the aortic arch vessels, stenting in hybrid arch repair, and timing of preventative surgery.

CONCLUSION

Developments in the classification of aortic dissection have improved our perspective and understanding of the key presenting features that affect mortality. Improvements in patient outcome may be achieved in part by appropriately timed echocardiography-guided surgery.

Surgical Management of Aortic Root Dilatation with Advanced Aortic Regurgitation: Bentall Operation versus Valve-sparing Procedure

BACKGROUND

Although the aortic valve-sparing procedure has gained popularity in recent years, it still remains challenging in patients with advanced aortic regurgitation (AR). We compared the long-term outcomes of the aortic valve-sparing procedure with the Bentall operation in patients with advanced aortic regurgitation secondary to aortic root dilatation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective review of 120 patients who underwent surgery for aortic root dilatation with moderate to severe AR between January 1999 and June 2009 was performed. Forty-eight patients underwent valve-sparing procedures (valve-sparing group), and 72 patients underwent the Bentall procedure (Bentall group). The two groups' overall survival, valve-related complications, and aortic valve function were compared.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up duration was 4.9±3.1 years. After adjustment, the valve-sparing group had similar risks of death (hazard ratio [HR], 0.61; p=0.45), and valve related complications (HR, 1.27; p=0.66). However, a significant number of patients developed moderate to severe AR in the valve-sparing group at a mean of 4.4±2.5 years of echocardiographic follow-up (p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Both the Bentall operation and aortic valve-sparing procedure showed comparable long-term clinical results in patients with advanced aortic regurgitation with aortic root dilatation. However, recurrent advanced aortic regurgitation was more frequently observed following valve-sparing procedures.

Expanding the indications for the David V aortic root replacement: early results

OBJECTIVE

To examine the early results of the David V valve-sparing aortic root replacement procedure in expanded, higher risk clinical scenarios with appropriately selected patients.

METHODS

From 2005 to 2011, 150 David V valve-sparing aortic root replacements were performed within Emory Healthcare. A total of 78 patients (expanded group) had undergone the David V in expanded, difficult clinical settings such as emergent type A dissection (n = 29), grade 3+ or greater aortic insufficiency (AI) (n = 53), or reoperative cardiac surgery (n = 14). These patients were evaluated and compared with a group of 72 patients (traditional group) with less than grade 3+ AI who underwent a David V in a traditional, elective setting. The mean follow-up was 19 months (range, 1-72), and the follow-up data were 88% complete.

RESULTS

There were 3 operative deaths (2.2%), all occurring in the expanded group. The overall patient survival at 6 years was 95%. Three patients required aortic valve replacement: two for severe AI and one for fungal endocarditis. Both groups had concomitant cusp repairs performed in conjunction with the David V (traditional, n = 10; and expanded, n = 16; P = .27). At follow-up, freedom from moderate AI was 93%, and the freedom from aortic valve replacement was 98%. No significant difference was observed in the freedom from moderate AI between the expanded and traditional groups (91% vs 95%, respectively; P = .16).

CONCLUSIONS

In selected patients possessing appropriate aortic cusp anatomy, the David V can be safely and effectively performed for the expanded indications of aortic dissection, severe AI, and reoperative cardiac surgery with low operative risk. Valve function has remained excellent in the short term, providing evidence of durability and a low rate of valve-related complications.

Valve-sparing aortic root replacement

The aortic root has a unique 3-dimensional configuration and the distinctive function of supporting the aortic valve and blood vessels. The sinuses of Valsalva are crucial to create appropriate eddy currents that are important in initiating and coordinating aortic valve closure and promoting coronary artery blood flow. Most aneurysms in the aortic root are associated with degenerative changes in the elastic media rather than atherosclerosis. Valve-sparing root repair has become widely accepted, although the Bentall procedure remains the gold standard. Because reimplantation using the Valsalva graft allows root geometry to be retained and theoretically and practically prevents recurrent aortic valve regurgitation, it is considered the most reliable and preferred technique among various valve-sparing aortic root repair procedures.