Redo After Failure of Aortic Homografts With a Rapid Deployment Valve

Aortic root allograft reoperations

OBJECTIVE

To investigate outcomes after aortic root allograft reoperation, identify risk factors for morbidity and mortality, and describe practice evolution since publication of our 2006 allograft reoperation study.

METHODS

From January 1987 to July 2020, 602 patients underwent 632 allograft-related reoperations at Cleveland Clinic: 144 before 2006 (early era, which suggested radical explant was superior to aortic-valve-replacement-within-allograft [AVR-only]), and 488 from 2006 to present (recent era). Indications for reoperation were structural valve deterioration in 502 (79%), infective endocarditis in 90 (14%), and nonstructural valve deterioration/noninfective endocarditis in 40 (6.3%). Reoperative techniques included radical allograft explant in 372 (59%), AVR-only in 248 (39%), and allograft preservation in 12 (1.9%). Perioperative events and survival were assessed among indications, techniques, and eras.

RESULTS

Operative mortality by indication was 2.2% (n = 11) for structural valve deterioration, 7.8% (n = 7) in those with infective endocarditis, and 7.5% (n = 3) for nonstructural valve deterioration/noninfective endocarditis, and by surgical approach 2.4% (n = 9) after radical explant, 4.0% (n = 10) for AVR-only, and 17% (n = 2) for allograft preservation. Operative adverse events occurred in 4.9% (n = 18) of radical explants and 2.8% (n = 7) of AVR-only procedures (P = .2). Patients undergoing radical explants received larger valves than those undergoing AVR-only (median, 25 vs 23 mm).

CONCLUSIONS

Aortic root allograft reoperations present a technical challenge but can be performed with low mortality and morbidity. Radical explant offers outcomes similar to AVR-only while allowing for implant of larger prostheses. Increasing experience with allograft reoperations has permitted excellent outcomes; thus, risk of reoperation should not dissuade surgeons from using allografts for invasive aortic valve infective endocarditis and other indications.

The Use of the Cryopreserved Aortic Homograft for Aortic Valve Replacement: Is It Still an Option?

The indications for cryopreserved allografts in aortic valve replacement are still debatable. We aim to identify factors influencing early and long-term durability of the aortic homograft and to define subgroups of patients with an improved long-term quality of life, survival, and freedom from structural valve degeneration (SVD). We evaluated our series of 210 patients who underwent allograft implantation with a retrospective cohort study design over a period of 20 years. Endpoints were overall mortality, cardiac mortality related to SVD, the incidence of SVD, reoperation, and a composite endpoint comprising major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs), which includes cardiac death both related and not related to SVD, subsequent aortic valve surgery, new or recurrent infection of implanted allograft, recurrent aortic regurgitation, rehospitalization for heart failure, an increase in New York Heart Association (NYHA) class of ≥1, or cerebrovascular events. The primary indication for surgery was endocarditis (48%), which was also a predisposing factor for increased cardiac mortality. Overall mortality was 32.4% with a 27% incidence of SVD and mortality associated with SVD of 13.8%. Reoperation occurred in 33.8% and MACCEs in 54.8%. Long-term NYHA functional class and echocardiographic parameters improved over time. Statistical analysis demonstrated that root replacement technique and adult age were protective factors for SVD. We found no statistically significant difference in the clinical outcomes analyzed between women of childbearing age who had children after surgery and the rest of the women. The cryopreserved allograft is still a valid option in aortic valve replacement, providing acceptable durability and clinical outcomes with optimal hemodynamic performance. SVD is influenced by the implantation technique. Women of childbearing age might have additional benefits from this procedure.

Placement of a rapid deployment aortic valve in a patient with severely calcified aortic root homograft

Significant aortic calcification is a known sequelae of homograft aortic root replacement and creates a treatment challenge if these patients require cardiac reintervention. The standard surgical option for patients requiring an aortic valve replacement in the setting of a calcified aortic homograft has been a Bentall procedure, which is high-risk with extended cross-clamp, cardiopulmonary bypass and operative times. We present a patient with a severely calcified aortic homograft who underwent successful valve replacement using a rapid deployment aortic valve leaving the aortic root and arch intact and avoiding the more extensive redo aortic root replacement. Similar cases in the literature are rare.

Rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement after aortic root replacement: A safe alternative to redo root replacement

Reoperative aortic root replacement, following prior biologic or mechanical valved conduit aortic root prosthesis, presents a technical challenge. The rapid-deployment aortic valve prosthesis is an approved alternative to traditional bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement. We present three clinical cases in which rapid-deployment aortic valve prostheses were utilized in lieu of reoperative full aortic root replacement. All three patients recovered uneventfully. The rapid-deployment valve insertion in a prior surgical aortic root prosthesis is a safe option to avoid reoperative full aortic root replacement.

The application of autologous pulmonary artery in surgical correction of complicated aortic arch anomaly

BACKGROUND

In the patients with longer-segment aortic arch hypoplasia or interruption with ventricular septal defect, surgery with homograft vessel or autologous pericardial patch to augment descending aortic arch will not result in adverse reactions caused by end-to-end anastomosis. In this study, we retrospectively analyzed primary experience of surgical correction of complicated aortic arch anomaly with autologous main pulmonary artery.

METHODS

From July 2010 to March 2016, the twenty-one cases of aortic arch complex anomalies were reconstructed with autologous main pulmonary artery. There were 5 patients with interrupted aortic arch and 16 patients with coarctation of aorta. In patients with interrupted aortic arch, anterior wall of main pulmonary artery was excised to form a conduit whose diameter varied according to the area of patient's body surface. Both ends of the conduit were anastomosed to aortic arch and descending aorta, respectively. In other patients with coarctation of aorta, aortic arch was augmented with tailored pulmonary artery patch in oval shape. The defect of main pulmonary artery was repaired with autologous pericardial patch.

RESULTS

There was only one patient died of multiple organ failure postoperatively. The other twenty patients survived without any neurologic complications. Differences of blood pressure between upper and lower limbs were not significant in all cases. During follow-up period, the echocardiography for all patients in the third, sixth, twelfth, and twenty-fourth months showed that blood flow in the descending aortic arch was fluent and there was no obvious blood pressure gradient.

CONCLUSIONS

Autologous main pulmonary artery can be used to repair complicated aortic arch anomalies completely without any anastomotic tension or bronchial obstruction postoperatively. This procedure is feasible and possesses predominant early and mid-term effects, and autologous main pulmonary artery can retain growth capacity during follow-up period. Of course, it is necessary to draw a definite conclusion of this technique during long-term follow-up period.