Impact of Cusp Repair on Reoperation Risk After the David Procedure

Valve-Sparing vs Bio-Bentall Aortic Root Replacement in Patients Aged 60 to 75 Years: Survival, Reintervention, and Aortic Regurgitation

BACKGROUND

Valve-sparing root replacement (VSRR) with the David technique is an established therapy for aortic root pathology in young patients. This study evaluated short- and long-term outcomes between VSRR and aortic root replacement (ARR) with a biological-valved conduit in sexagenarians.

METHODS

A multicenter retrospective review from 2002 to 2022 identified 299 sexagenarians undergoing aortic root surgery, among whom 82 (27.4%) underwent VSRR and 217 (72.6%) underwent bio-Bentall. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was applied to balance clinical variables. Median follow-up was 15 years (interquartile range, 12-18 years). Study end points were in-hospital mortality, long-term survival, freedom from reintervention, and recurrence of at least moderate aortic regurgitation (AR).

RESULTS

There were no major differences in baseline characteristics. The incidence of bicuspid valves (VSRR, 4.9%; ARR, 19%), severe AR (42% vs 51%), type A aortic dissection (1.2% vs 6.9%), and reoperation (4% vs 23%) were higher in ARR. After IPTW, there was no difference in in-hospital mortality (VSRR, 1.2%; ARR, 4.6%; P = .3). The incidence of neurologic complications (P = .003) and permanent pacemaker implantation (P = .022) were significantly higher in the bio-Bentall group. After IPTW, 10-year survival did not differ between VSRR (87%) and ARR (80%; P = .176). However, cardiac survival was significantly higher in VSRR patients (98% vs 92%, P = .018), with deaths mainly due to infective endocarditis and end-stage heart failure. No difference was reported in reoperation/recurrence of at least moderate AR among the groups at 10 years, with only 1 patient undergoing reintervention after bio-Bentall (P = .117).

CONCLUSIONS

David and bio-Bentall procedures have low in-hospital mortality and good long-term survival in sexagenarians. VSRR is associated with improved long-term cardiac survival, lower rates of infective endocarditis, permanent pacemaker implantation, and heart failure episodes, with similar rates of reintervention/recurrence of moderate AR.

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

OBJECTIVES

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).

METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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.

CONCLUSIONS

Both ARR and VSRR can be performed with acceptable short- and long-term outcomes in patients with moderate-to-severe AI.

Reoperation or Aortic Regurgitation Progression after Reimplantation of the Aortic Valve (David's Procedure) Using the Valsalva Graft

BACKGROUND

 This study aimed to assess predictors of a composite endpoint (reoperation for aortic valve [AV] failure or aortic regurgitation [AR] grade ≥ 2) after reimplantation of the aortic valve (RAV) using the Valsalva graft.

METHODS

 From 2012 to 2021, 112 patients underwent RAV in a single center. Clinical and echocardiographic data were collected retrospectively. Cox regression analysis was used to identify predictors of the composite endpoint. Kaplan-Meier methods were used for time-to-event analysis.

RESULTS

 Median (interquartile range) age was 52 years (44, 62). Nineteen patients (17%) were operated for acute Type A aortic dissection, and the remainder for aortic root aneurysm, 60 mm or larger in 12/112 (11%). Thirty-day mortality was 1/112 (1%). During follow-up, four patients (3.6%) were reoperated for AV failure, and another nine patients (8.1%) developed AR grade ≥ 2. Overall estimated freedom from reoperation or AR grade ≥ 2 was 87% (95% confidence interval: 76-93%) at 5 years. Significantly lower estimated 5-year freedom from the composite endpoint was found in cases with simultaneous aortic valve repair (AVr; 77 vs. 90%, p = 0.007) and nearly significant for large (≥ 6 cm) aortic root diameter (82 vs. 87%, p = 0.055). In Cox's analysis, aortic root diameter and simultaneous AVr were independent predictors for the composite endpoint.

CONCLUSION

 Outcomes (survival, reoperation, freedom from AR grade ≥ 2) with RAV were good up to 11-year follow-up. Larger aortic root diameter and simultaneous AVr were identified as predictors for reoperation or AR grade ≥ 2. Long-term follow-up remains necessary to confirm adequate AV function.

Two decades of valve-sparing root reimplantation in tricuspid aortic valve: impact of aortic regurgitation and cusp repair

OBJECTIVES

Our goal was to analyse the influence of preoperative aortic regurgitation (AR) on the necessity of cusp repair during valve-sparing reimplantation (VSR). We focused on patients with tricuspid aortic valves (TAV) and evaluated the impact of AR and cusp repair on long-term outcomes.

METHODS

From March 1998 to December 2018, a total of 512 consecutive patients underwent VSR at our institution; of these, 303 had a TAV. The mean age was 53 ± 15 years, and the median follow-up was 6.12 years. The rate and type of cusp repair were analysed based on preoperative AR. Time-to-event analysis was performed, as well as risk of death, reoperation and AR recurrence.

RESULTS

Cusp repair was necessary in 168 (55.4%) patients; the rate rose significantly as AR grade increased (P < 0.001). In-hospital mortality was 1% (n = 3). At 5 and 10 years, overall survival was 92 ± 2% and 75 ± 5%, respectively. Freedom from valve reoperation was 95 ± 2% and 90 ± 3%. Freedom from AR >2+ and AR >1+ at 10 years was 88 ± 4% and 70.4 ± 4.6%, respectively. Independent predictors of death included age, New York Heart Association functional class and type-A aortic dissection. Predictors of AR greater than mild included previous cardiac surgery and severe preoperative AR.

CONCLUSION

In patients with TAV receiving VSR, the necessity of cusp repair increased with the degree of preoperative AR. Preoperative AR and cusp repair do not impact long-term survival and aortic valve reoperation, but severe preoperative AR and multiple cusp repair increase the risk of recurrent moderate-to-severe AR. Overall, cusp repair seems to attenuate the negative impact of preoperative AR for at least 1 decade in a majority of patients.

Outcome of valve sparing root replacement for diverse indications

OBJECTIVES

We report the mid-term outcomes of valve-sparing aortic root replacement (VSRR) in a cohort including patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV), connective tissue disorder (CTD), aortic dissection (AD), and congenital heart disease (CHD). Design. From 2005 to 2017, 174 patients underwent VSRR with the reimplantation technique. The mean age was 46 ± 14 years. The mean follow-up time was 4.8 ± 2.8 years. The indication for operation was aortic aneurysm for 127 (73%), aortic insufficiency (AI) for 38 (22%), and AD for 9 patients (5%). Preoperatively, 53 patients (31%) had ≥ moderate AI. BAV, CTD (Marfan or Loyes-Dietz), previous Ross procedure, or CHD was present in 57 (33%), 28 (16%), 7 (4%) and 12 patients (7%), respectively. Concomitant aortic valve repair was performed for 103 patients (59%). Results. Thirty-day mortality was zero. Four patients underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR) during follow-up. Kaplan-Meier estimates for survival, freedom from AVR, and freedom from ≥ moderate AI or reoperation were 96, 98, and 97% at 5 years. There was no difference in survival, freedom from AVR, or freedom from ≥ moderate AI or reoperation in patients with and without BAV, CTD, leaflet repair, or preoperative ≥ moderate AI. In Cox regression analysis, BAV, CTD, aortic valve repair, preoperative ≥ moderate AI, or aortic dimension were not risk factors for reoperation or valve dysfunction. Conclusions. Mid-term outcomes of VSRR for patients with diverse indications in terms of survival, reoperation rate, and valve dysfunction rate were excellent in a center with a limited annual volume of VSSR.

Preoperative Eccentric Aortic Regurgitation and Outcomes Following Valve-Sparing Root Replacement

The David V valve-sparing root replacement (VSRR) is well-established for the treatment of aortic insufficiency (AI) and advanced root aortopathy. The impact of cusp repair in trileaflet aortic valve (TAV) patients, however, with preoperative moderate-severe AI and an eccentric jet is unclear. This study compares outcomes in TAV patients with pre-operative AI >2+ based on jet centricity and cusp repair status. Review of a single institutional database identified 309 consecutive patients undergoing VSRR from 2005 to 2018. Of these, 51 patients had TAV with AI >2+: 25 concentric and 26 eccentric jets. Mean follow-up was 58 (SD = 44) months. Echocardiographic parameters were compared pre- and post-operatively. Kaplan-Meier analysis, longitudinal mixed modeling, and cumulative incidence were used to compare long-term survival, recurrence of AI >1+, and valve specific re-intervention, respectively. The mean age was 48 (SD = 12) years and 84% were male. Differences in preoperative comorbidities and echocardiographic parameters between groups were not statistically significant. Postoperative outcomes were similar in concentric vs. eccentric and cusp vs. no cusp repair. Recurrence of AI>1+ was minimal and unrelated to jet centricity (concentric = 1, eccentric = 3) and cusp repair (no cusp repair = 1, cusp repair = 3) long-term. Aortic valve replacement cumulative incidence was 0% for central and 5% for eccentric at 3-, 5-, and 10-years, respectively. Long-term mortality was similar regardless of jet centricity and cusp repair. In appropriately selected TAV patients with preoperative AI >2+, current results suggest VSRR provides a durable repair regardless of jet centricity or the need for cusp repair based on low rates of reintervention reported.

Fifteen Years of Aortic Valve-sparing Root Replacement and Impact of Eccentric Jets on Late Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Valve-sparing root replacement is more challenging with eccentric aortic insufficiency due to cusp and root asymmetry, which may impact valve durability and survival. This study analyzed the effect of jet eccentricity on long-term outcomes in tricuspid aortic valves (TAVs) and bicuspid aortic valves (BAVs).

METHODS

From 2005 to 2019, 111 patients (65 TAVs, 46 BAVs) with >2+ aortic insufficiency underwent valve-sparing root replacement at an academic center. Pre- and postoperative echocardiograms were analyzed. Of these, 32 patients presented with concentric jets (29 TAVs, 3 BAVs) and 71 with eccentric jets (28 TAVs, 43 BAVs). Median follow-up was 49 months (interquartile range, 12-93). Kaplan-Meier analysis and cumulative risk were used to compare long-term survival and valve-related reintervention.

RESULTS

Mean patient age was 44 ± 12 years. Compared with TAV, more BAV patients presented with eccentric jets (93.5% vs 43.1%, P < .001). All BAV patients received cusp repair compared with 52.3% of TAV patients (P < .001). At 3, 5, and 10 years the cumulative risk of aortic valve replacement for TAV (4.7%, 6.4%, and 6.4%) versus BAV (5.8%, 7.8%, and 7.8%) patients (P = .87) and concentric (0%, 0%, and 0%) versus eccentric (6.4%, 9.4%, and 9.4%) jets (P = .98) was similar. Overall survival at 10 years was 71% for TAV and 97% for BAV (P = .19) and 86% for concentric and 79% for eccentric jets (P = .17).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients presenting for valve-sparing root replacement with >2+ aortic insufficiency the risk of valve-related reintervention long term was low after cusp repair in TAVs and BAVs. Current results suggest preoperative jet eccentricity does not impact long-term survival and valve durability.

Additional cusp reconstruction does not compromise valve durability and mid-term survival after the David procedure: results from 449 patients

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate whether additional cusp interventions and valve types affect aortic valve-related reoperation and mortality rates after the David procedure.

METHODS

Between 1997 and 2018, a total of 449 patients {372 males; mean age 54.2 [standard deviation (SD) 15.2] years, range: 12.7-79.9 years} underwent elective valve-sparing aortic root replacement (David procedure) for aortic regurgitation and were prospectively followed up clinically and echocardiographically.

RESULTS

The follow-up was 94% complete. Cumulative follow-up time was 2268 patient-years [mean follow-up time 5.1 (4.3 SD) years]. Thirty-day mortality was 2.2% (n = 10). Late (>30 days) survival did not differ from that of the age- and gender-matched general population. Freedom from reoperation in patients without additional cusp reconstruction was 94% [95% confidence interval (CI) 91-98] and 92% (95% CI 88-97) at 5 and 10 years, respectively, which was not significantly different (P = 1) for patients who did require additional cusp reconstruction 98% (95% CI 95-100) and 89% (95% CI 81-99). In patients with tricuspid aortic valves (n = 338), freedom from reoperation was 96% (95% CI 94-99) and 93% (95% CI 88-97) at 5 and 10 years, respectively. Patients with bicuspid aortic valves (n = 111) had a freedom from reoperation of 94% (95% CI 89-99) at 5 years and 88% (95% CI 79-98) at 10 years (P = 0.021 for the comparison to tricuspid aortic valve). Overall, 23 patients (5%; 1%/patient-year) required reoperation with a mean interval of 4.5 (4.8 SD) months.

CONCLUSIONS

The David procedure revealed low mid-term reoperation risk and excellent survival independent of adjunctive cusp interventions/valve morphology and is comparable with that of the age- and gender-matched general population.

Severely calcified bicuspid aortic valve stenosis after valve-sparing root replacement: A word of caution

A 58-year-old man was admitted for reoperation for severe aortic stenosis in a previously preserved bicuspid aortic valve (BAV). He had undergone valve-sparing root replacement (VSSR) for dilated aortic root 6 years ago. Transesophageal echocardiography following VSSR showed good valve function with no aortic incompetence. However, the BAV became stenotic causing shortness of breath. At reoperation, the preserved BAV was noted to be fibrotic and calcified and had a fixed rigid small orifice. It was replaced with a biological valve plus root enlargement. Macroscopic finding showed thickening of the cusps and nodular calcification. Microscopic examination revealed severe nodular calcification.

Two different geometric orientations for aortic neoroot creation in bicuspid aortic valve repair with root reimplantation

OBJECTIVE

Bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) represents 2 cusps oriented along a spectrum of equal (180°/180°) or unequal (150°/210°) leaflet surface area distribution along the aortic annular plane. We have taken the approach of respecting the native geometric orientation of the repaired BAV leaflets when creating the aortic neoroot during valve-sparing root reimplantation (VSRR) procedures. We investigated midterm outcomes with this 2-prong approach for VSRR in BAV syndrome.

METHODS

Of 72 patients in a prospectively maintained BAV repair database, 68 met inclusion criteria: 36 patients had 180°/180° neoroot geometry, and 32 patients had 150°/210° orientation. A multivariate ordinal logistic mixed effects model was performed to study parameters associated with recurrent AI greater than 2+.

RESULTS

Preoperative parameters were similar between 180°/180° and 150°/210° groups, except for greater incidence of AI 4+ in the latter (50.0% [n = 16] vs 8.3% [n = 3]; P < .001). Postoperatively, stroke, renal failure, reoperation for bleeding, and pacemaker rates were 0 in the entire cohort. In-hospital/30-day mortality in the entire cohort was 1.5% (n = 1). Multivariate ordinal logistic mixed effects model showed that preoperative AI greater than 3+ (odds ratio, 0.4; P = .46) and geometric orientation of the aortic neoroot (odds ratio, 3.8; P = .25) were not significantly associated with recurrence of AI greater than 2+.

CONCLUSIONS

Respecting BAV geometry for VSRR neoroot creation yields excellent midterm outcomes and may minimize conjoint cusp leaflet stress that may occur in "forcing" a 150°/210° type I BAV into a 180°/180° neoroot.

Risk Factors for Late Aortic Valve Dysfunction After the David V Valve-Sparing Root Replacement

BACKGROUND

Valve-sparing root replacement (VSRR) is an established therapy for aortic root pathology. However, late aortic valve dysfunction requiring reoperation remains a primary concern of this procedure. This study examines risk factors for late aortic insufficiency (AI) and aortic stenosis (AS) after David V VSRR.

METHODS

A retrospective review from 2005 to 2015 at a US academic center identified 282 patients who underwent VSRR. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to identify risk factors for late AI and AS after VSRR.

RESULTS

The mean age was 46.4 years. Sixty-four patients (22.7%) had bicuspid valves, and 41 patients (14.5%) had Marfan syndrome. The incidence of reoperations was 27 (9.6%), and 42 cases (14.9%) presented with acute type A dissection. Operative mortality was 8 (2.8%). Seven-year survival was 90.9%. Seven-year cumulative incidence of reoperation, greater than 2+ AI and greater than moderate AS were 3.1%, 2.2%, and 0.8%, respectively. Multivariable analysis showed aortic root size 55 mm or larger (hazard ratio 3.44, 95% confidence interval: 1.27 to 9.29, p = 0.01) to be a risk factor for late AI whereas bicuspid valve (hazard ratio 16.07, 95% confidence interval: 3.12 to 82.68, p = 0.001) and cusp repair were found to be risk factors (hazard ratio 5.91, 95% confidence interval: 1.17 to 29.86, p = 0.03) for late AS.

CONCLUSIONS

Valve-sparing root replacement can be performed with low operative risk and good overall long-term survival even in complex clinical settings. Durable valve function can be expected; however, aortic root size 55 cm or more, bicuspid valve anatomy, and cusp repair represent independent risk factors for late aortic valve dysfunction after these procedures.