Long-term survival, valve durability, and reoperation for 4 aortic root procedures combined with ascending aorta replacement

Posterior left pericardiotomy for prevention of re-thoracotomy and postoperative atrial fibrillation in aortic surgery

OBJECTIVES

Re-thoracotomy due to pericardial effusion is a frequent complication after aortic surgery, leading to prolonged intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital stays and adverse outcomes. This study aims to evaluate the frequency of re-thoracotomy and postoperative atrial fibrillation in patients undergoing ascending aorta replacement with or without posterior left pericardiotomy.

METHODS

We retrospectively analysed clinical data from patients who underwent elective ascending aorta replacement with or without aortic root between January 2014 and June 2024. Patients were divided into two groups based on posterior left pericardiotomy. We assessed re-thoracotomy due to bleeding or pericardial effusion, postoperative atrial fibrillation, ICU and in-hospital stay, as well as mortality rates, adjusting for confounders using propensity score matching.

RESULTS

A total of 256 patients could be included (n = 140 without and n = 116 with posterior left pericardiotomy). Mean age was 61.6 ±12.2 years, with 27.7% female patients. After matching, re-thoracotomy (12.9% vs 3.4%; P = 0.007) and postoperative atrial fibrillation (36.4% vs 16.4%; P = 0.011) were higher in patients without pericardiotomy. Thirty-day and 1-year mortality were 1.3% and 4.2%, respectively. Posterior left pericardiotomy was associated with shorter ventilation time (8.0 vs 15.0 hours; P < 0.001) and hospital stay (8.0 vs 12.0 days; P < 0.001). Similar results were observed between the unmatched and the matched cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

Posterior left pericardiotomy is a simple surgical manoeuvre associated with lower rates of re-thoracotomy and postoperative atrial fibrillation in elective aortic surgery patients in a retrospective cohort. Further prospective randomized trials should be performed to confirm and highlight the results from our study.

Advancements and Challenges in the Management of Prosthetic Valve Endocarditis: A Review

Prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE) is the medical term used to describe a focus of infection involving a valvular substitute within the heart. It is a significant concern in the field of cardiology, and the epidemiology of PVE has seen notable developments over the last five decades. The disease currently affects an older demographic and is becoming increasingly prevalent in patients with transcatheter-implanted valves. It is imperative that we urgently address the significant challenges posed by PVE. It is a disease that has a wide range of potential aetiologies, clinical presentations, and courses. In developed countries, Staphylococcus aureus is now the predominant causative organism, resulting in an aggressive form of disease that frequently afflicts vulnerable or elderly populations. However, it is clear that Enterococcus species present a significant challenge in the context of PVE following TAVR procedures, given their elevated prevalence. The 2023 Duke/International Society for Cardiovascular Infectious Diseases infective endocarditis diagnostic criteria now include significant developments in microbiological and image-based techniques for diagnostic purposes, specifically the incorporation of fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and computed tomography. These developments unequivocally enhance the diagnostic sensitivity for PVE, while maintaining the specificity. They do so in accordance with the results of studies conducted specifically for the purpose of validation. The lack of rigorous scientific studies and a shortage of funding and resources for research have led to a significant gap in our understanding. Randomized controlled trials could provide invaluable insight and guidance for clinical practice, but they are missing, which represents a major gap. It is clear that there is an urgent need for more research. PVE is a life-threatening condition that must be handled by a multidisciplinary endocarditis team at a cardiac centre in order to improve outcomes. The emergence of innovative surgical techniques has empowered clinicians to steer more patients away from surgical procedures, despite the presence of clear indications for them. A select group of patients can now complete parenteral or oral antimicrobial treatment at home. Additionally, antibiotic prophylaxis is the best option for individuals with prosthetic valves who are going to have invasive dental procedures. These individuals should be given antibiotics beforehand.

Valve-sparing aortic root replacement-for all patients?

BACKGROUND

Valve-sparing root replacement (VSRR) has been associated with good survival and low rates of valve-related complications (VRCs). Whether these advantages are present irrespective of patient comorbidity or age is unclear. The aim of this study was to analyze survival and frequency of VRCs in relation to patient comorbidity and age.

METHODS

Between October 1995 and December 2021, 1156 patients with a bicuspid or tricuspid aortic valve were treated by root remodeling. The mean patient age was 53.3 ± 14 years, and 973 (84%) were male. The mean duration of follow-up was 6.7 ± 5.5 years (median, 5.9 years), and follow-up was 95% complete (7746 patient-years). We analyzed the population according to comorbidity and age at surgery. A discriminating cutoff for the effect of age was determined using receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) analysis.

RESULTS

Mean survival at 15 years was 74.7 ± 2.5%. Deceased patients were older (mean, 65.3 ± 12 years vs 51.6 ± 14.1 years; P < .001) at the time of surgery and had more comorbidities (coronary artery disease [CAD], 28.4% vs 9.8%; P < .001). The sole significant adjusted predictor was age (P < .001). By ROC analysis (area under the curve, 0.780), the optimal cutoff for age was 61 years. Survival was 87.1 ± 2.8% at 15 years in patients age <61 years, compared to 55.3 ± 4.3% in patients age >61 years (P < .0001). Using competing risk analysis, VRC-free survival at 15 years was 66.8% at 15 years, including 76.7% in patients age <61 years and 52.4% in those age >61 years (P < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

VSRR is associated with a low incidence of VRC and excellent durability. Survival is decreased in the presence of comorbidities, mainly CAD, and patient age >61 years. Despite lower survival, freedom from VRC is good.

Reoperative aortic root replacement following previous cardiac surgery or type A aortic dissection repair

OBJECTIVE

Reoperative aortic root replacement (ARR) is a technically challenging procedure. This study assesses the influence of reoperation on outcomes following ARR, particularly after prior acute type A aortic dissection repair.

METHODS

Of the 1823 patients in this study, 1592 (87.3%) underwent primary ARR, and 231 (12.7%) underwent reoperative ARR. Within the reoperative ARR group, 69 patients (29.9%) had previous acute type A aortic dissection repair, and 162 patients (70.1%) underwent reoperative ARR for other indications.

RESULTS

Reoperative ARR patients exhibited higher rates of ischemic heart disease (13.9% vs 3%; P < .001), diabetes (10% vs 5.3%; P = .009), chronic pulmonary disease (9.1% vs 5%; P = .018), renal impairment (17.7% vs 5.3%; P < .001), and had lower ejection fraction (45.5% ± 8.1% vs 47.6% ± 7.9%; P < .001) compared with primary ARR. The overall operative mortality was 0.4%, with no significant difference between groups (0.9% vs 0.3%; P = .485). At multivariable analysis, previous operation was the most powerful predictor for major adverse events (odds ratio, 3.20; 95% CI, 2.12-4.79; P < .001). Reoperative ARR had a lower 10-year survival compared with primary ARR (67.4% vs 85.9%; log-rank P < .001). Multivariable analysis further confirmed that reoperation was significantly associated with 10-year mortality (hazard ratio, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.01-3.06; P = .044). Among the reoperative ARR group, operative mortality after previous acute type A aortic dissection repair was similar to that for other etiologies (0% vs 1.2%; P = .880).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing reoperative ARR have more comorbidities and extensive aortic disease compared with those undergoing primary surgery. They face a 3.5-fold increased risk of major adverse events but no difference in operative mortality compared with primary ARR.

Early and late experience of the modified aortic reimplantation operation

OBJECTIVE

Valve-sparing aortic root replacement for proximal aortic dilation with aortic regurgitation is associated with excellent outcomes. Modified aortic reimplantation entails reducing the anulus size to the expected size for sex and body surface area and creating neosinuses to preserve the aortic valve. We present our mid- and late-term outcomes with the modified technique, including a single-surgeon's experience over the past 2 decades.

METHODS

From January 2002 to January 2024, 528 patients underwent modified aortic reimplantation for aortic aneurysm or dilation; 491 were included in this study. End points included time-related mortality and postoperative morbidities, including aortic valve reintervention and longitudinal aortic regurgitation grade.

RESULTS

There were no operative deaths. Survival at 30 days, 1 year, and 15 years were 100%, 99.6%, and 87%, respectively. Postoperative stroke occurred in 4 patients (0.81%) and reoperation for bleeding in 7 (1.4%). Moderate or severe aortic valve regurgitation was seen in 6.2% and 10% of patients at 1 and 10 years, respectively. Aortic valve mean gradients were 7.0 and 7.5 mm Hg at 1 and 10 years, respectively. Freedom from reintervention on the aortic valve was 99.9%, 99%, and 95% at 30 days, 1 year, and 15 years, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Modified aortic reimplantation technique is a reliable and reproducible technique with excellent mid- and long-term outcomes in survival and freedom from reintervention. The results advocate for modified reimplantation in patients with enlarged aortic roots, especially in younger patients with connective tissue disorder.

Research Progress on Aortic Root Aneurysms

Aortic root aneurysms are one of the most common aortic root diseases, involving the aortic valve, aortic sinus, bilateral coronary arteries, and part of the ascending aorta. It is a life-threatening aortic disease with a high mortality rate of approximately 90%, due to aortic aneurysm rupture. Aortic valve insufficiency is one of the most common complications of aortic root aneurysms that can lead to acute left heart failure. The etiology of aortic root aneurysms is not yet completely clear and is mainly related to genetic diseases, such as Marfan syndrome and atherosclerosis. It can also occur secondary to aortic valve stenosis or a bivalve deformity. Surgery is the primary treatment for aortic root aneurysms, and aortic root replacement is a classic surgical method. However, the incidences of perioperative complications and mortality are relatively high, particularly in high-risk patients. In recent years, the anatomical structure of the aortic root has been gradually refined, and an in-depth understanding of root aneurysms has led to individualized treatment methods. Conservative drug therapy (ß-receptor blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, or angiotensin receptor blockers), Bentall and modified Bentall surgeries (Button technology, Cabrol surgery, and modified Cabrol surgery), valve-sparing aortic root replacement (David and Yacoub), personalized external aortic root support, and endovascular intervention therapy have significantly improved the perioperative and long-term survival rates of patients with aortic root aneurysms. However, different treatment methods have their own advantages and disadvantages. This review aimed to summarize the current research progress and treatment of aortic root aneurysms.

Midterm follow-up of composite graft replacement of the aortic root (30-year experience)-remarkably safe, effective, and durable

Objectives

Contemporary operative choices for aortic root disease include aortic root replacement (ARR) and a variety of valve-sparing and aortic root-repair procedures. We evaluate ultra-long-term outcomes of ARR, focusing on survival, freedom from late reoperation, and adverse events.

Methods

Prospectively kept records were used to accomplish long-term follow-up of patients who underwent ARR (4-pronged Yale survival assessment paradigm).

Results

Between 1990 and 2020, 564 patients underwent ARR (mean 56 years, 84% male). A modified Cabrol procedure (Dacron coronary graft) was employed in 9.0% (51/564) and concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting in 9.4% (53/564). There were 12.8% (72/564) urgent/emergent and 7.4% (42/564) redo procedures. Operative mortality occurred in 12 patients (2.1%) overall, or 1.4% (8/554) of nondissection and 1.3% (6/468) of elective first-time operations. Six of the 12 deaths presented with acute type A dissection, urgent operation, or reoperative states. Operative mortality dropped to 0.6% during the past 10 years. In total, 11 patients developed endocarditis. Stroke occurred in 11 of 564 patients (2.0%), 4 of whom had presented with type A dissection. Late events included bleeding in 2.8% (16/564), thromboembolism in 1.4% (8/564), and reoperation of the root in 5 of 564 (0.9%) at 15 years and more distal aortic segments in 16/564 (2.8%). Survival was no different from age/sex-matched controls.

Conclusions

This ultra-long-term experience finds ARR to be extraordinarily safe, effective, and durable, with minimal long-term bleeding, thromboembolism, or graft failure. This experience provides a standard of durability for ARR against which ultra-long-term outcomes with alternate procedures (valve-sparing, Ross, other) may be compared.

Mechanical Versus Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients Undergoing Bentall Procedure

BACKGROUND

The widely used Bentall procedure is the criterion standard treatment for aortic root pathology. Studies comparing the long-term outcomes of bioprosthetic and mechanical valves in patients undergoing the Bentall procedure are limited.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients who underwent the Bentall procedure with a bioprosthetic or mechanical valve between 2001 and 2018 were identified from Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database. The primary outcome of interest was all-cause mortality. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was performed to compare the 2 prosthetic types. In total, 1052 patients who underwent the Bentall procedure were identified. Among these patients, 351 (33.4%) and 701 (66.6%) chose bioprosthetic and mechanical valves, respectively. After inverse probability of treatment weighting, no significant differences in the in-hospital mortality (odds ratio, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.77-1.19]; P=0.716) and all-cause mortality (34.1% vs. 38.1%; hazard ratio, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.78-1.04]; P=0.154) were observed between the groups. The benefits of relative mortality associated with mechanical valves were apparent in younger patients and persisted until ≈50 years of age.

CONCLUSIONS

No differences in survival benefits were observed between the valves in patients who underwent the Bentall procedure. Additionally, bioprosthetic valves may be a reasonable choice for patients aged >50 years when receiving the Bentall procedure in this valve-in-valve era.

Outcomes of aortic root replacement with tricuspid aortic valve reimplantation in patients with residual aortic regurgitation

OBJECTIVE

To characterize residual aortic regurgitation (AR), identify its risk factors, and evaluate outcomes following aortic root replacement with aortic valve reimplantation.

METHODS

From 2002 to 2020, 756 patients with a tricuspid aortic valve underwent elective reimplantation for aortic root aneurysm. AR on transthoracic echocardiograms before hospital discharge was graded as mild or greater. Machine learning was used to identify risk factors for residual AR and subsequent aortic valve reoperation.

RESULTS

Sixty-five patients (8.6%) had mild (58 [7.7%]) or moderate (7 [0.93%]) residual postoperative AR. They had more severe preoperative AR (38% vs 12%; P < .0001), thickened cusps (7.7% vs 2.2%; P = .008), aortic valve repair (38% vs 23%; P = .004), and multiple returns to cardiopulmonary bypass for additional repair (11% vs 3.3%; P = .003) than those without AR. Predictors of residual AR were severe preoperative AR, smaller aortic root graft, and concomitant cusp repair. At 10 years, patients with versus without residual AR had more moderate or severe AR (48% vs 7.0%; P < .0001) and freedom from reoperation was worse (89% vs 98%; P < .0001). Residual AR was a risk factor for early reoperation. Concomitant coronary bypass, lower body mass index, and lower ejection fraction were risk factors for late reoperation. Ten-year survival was similar among patients with and without residual AR (97% vs 93%; P = .43).

CONCLUSIONS

Residual AR after elective reimplantation of a tricuspid aortic valve for aortic root aneurysm is uncommon. Patients with severe preoperative AR and those who undergo valve repair have higher risk for residual AR, which can progress and increase risk of aortic valve reoperation.

Aortic valve cusp repair does not affect durability of modified aortic valve reimplantation for tricuspid aortic valves

Objective

During aortic valve reimplantation, cusp repair may be needed to produce a competent valve. We investigated whether the need for aortic valve cusp repair affects aortic valve reimplantation durability.

Methods

Patients with tricuspid aortic valves who underwent aortic valve reimplantation from January 2002 to January 2020 at a single center were retrospectively analyzed. Propensity matching was used to compare outcomes between patients who did and did not require aortic valve cusp repair.

Results

Cusp repair was performed in 181 of 756 patients (24%). Patients who required cusp repair were more often male, were older, had more aortic valve regurgitation, and less often had connective tissue disease. Patients who underwent cusp repair had longer aortic clamp time (124 ± 43 minutes vs 107 ± 36 minutes, P = .001). In-hospital outcomes were similar between groups and with no operative deaths. A total of 98.3% of patients with cusp repair and 99.3% of patients without cusp repair had mild or less aortic regurgitation at discharge. The median follow-up was 3.9 and 3.2 years for the cusp repair and no cusp repair groups, respectively. At 10 years, estimated prevalence of moderate or more aortic regurgitation was 12% for patients with cusp repair and 7.0% for patients without cusp repair (P = .30). Mean aortic valve gradients were 6.2 mm Hg and 8.0 mm Hg, respectively (P = .01). Ten-year freedom from reoperation was 99% versus 99% (P = .64) in the matched cohort and 97% versus 97%, respectively (P = .30), in the unmatched cohort. Survival at 10 years was 98% after cusp repair and 93% without cusp repair (P = .05).

Conclusions

Aortic valve reimplantation for patients with tricuspid aortic valves has excellent long-term results. Need for aortic valve cusp repair does not affect long-term outcomes and should not deter surgeons from performing valve-sparing surgery.

A Literature Review on the Use of Aortic Allografts in Modern Cardiac Surgery for the Treatment of Infective Endocarditis: Is There Clear Evidence or Is It Merely a Perception?

Infective valve endocarditis is caused by different pathogens and 60% of those involve the aortic valve with valve failure. Although S. aureus is recognized as the most frequently isolated causative bacterium associated with IE in high-income countries, Gram-positive cocci nevertheless play a crucial role in promoting infection in relation to their adhesive matrix molecules. The presence of pili on the surface of Gram-positive bacteria such as in different strains of Enterococcus faecalis and Streptococcus spp., grants these causative pathogens a great offensive capacity due to the formation of biofilms and resistance to antibiotics. The indications and timing of surgery in endocarditis are debated as well as the choice of the ideal valve substitute to replace the diseased valve(s) when repair is not possible. We reviewed the literature and elaborated a systematic approach to endocarditis management based on clinical, microbiological, and anatomopathological variables known to affect postoperative outcomes with the aim to stratify the patients and orient decision making. From this review emerges significant findings on the risk of infection in the allograft used in patients with endocarditis and no endocarditis etiology suggesting that the use of allografts has proved safety and effectiveness in patients with both pathologies.

Three Decades of Experience with Aortic Prosthetic Valve Endocarditis

The objective of this study was to evaluate early and long-term outcomes of patients with aortic prosthetic valve endocarditis (a-PVE) treated with a prosthetic aortic valve (PAV), prosthetic valved conduit (PVC), or cryopreserved aortic homograft (CAH). A total of 144 patients, 115 male and 29 female, aged 67 ± 12 years, underwent surgery for a-PVE at our institution between 1994 and 2021. Median time from the original cardiac surgery was 1.9 [0.6-5.6] years, and 47 (33%) patients developed an early a-PVE. Of these patients, 73 (51%) underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR) with a biological or mechanical PAV, 12 (8%) underwent aortic root replacement (ARR) with a biological or mechanical PVC, and 59 (42%) underwent AVR or ARR with a CAH. Patients treated with a CAH had significantly more circumferential annular abscess multiple valve involvement, longer CPB and aortic cross-clamping times, and needed more postoperative pacemaker implantation than patients treated with a PAV. No difference was observed in survival, reoperation rates, or recurrence of IE between patients treated with a PAV, a PVC, or a CAH. CAHs are technically more demanding and more often used in patients who have extensive annular abscess and multiple valve involvement. However, the use of CAH is safe in patients with complex a-PVE, and it shows excellent early and long-term outcomes.

Aortic allograft infection risk

OBJECTIVE

Intrinsic risk of infection of cryopreserved allograft aortic root replacements remains poorly understood despite their long history of use. The objective of this study was to determine this intrinsic risk of allograft infection and its risk factors when allografts are implanted for both nonendocarditis indications and infective endocarditis.

METHODS

From January 1987 to January 2017, 2042 patients received 2110 allograft aortic valves at a quaternary medical center, 1124 (53%) for nonendocarditis indications and 986 (47%) for endocarditis indications (670 [68%] prosthetic valve endocarditis). Staphylococcus aureus caused 193 of 949 cases of endocarditis (20%), 71 (7.3%) in persons who injected drugs. Periodic surveillance and cross-sectional follow-up achieved 85% of possible follow-up time. The primary end point was allograft infection in patients with nonendocarditis and endocarditis indications. Risk factors were identified by hazard function decomposition and machine learning.

RESULTS

During follow-up, 30 allografts (26 explanted) became infected in patients in the nonendocarditis group and 49 (41 explanted) in patients with endocarditis. At 20 years, the probability of allograft infection was 5.6% in patients in the nonendocarditis group and 14% in patients with endocarditis. Risk factors for allograft infection in patients in the nonendocarditis group were younger patient age and older donor age. Risk factors for allograft infection in patients with endocarditis were earlier implant year, injection drug use, and younger age. In patients with endocarditis, 18% of allograft infections were caused by the original organism.

CONCLUSIONS

The low infection rates, both in patients without and with endocarditis, support continued use of allografts in the modern era, in particular for the treatment of invasive endocarditis of the aortic root.

Long-term outcomes of aortic root operations in the United States among Medicare beneficiaries

OBJECTIVE

The best method of aortic root repair in older patients remains unknown given a lack of comparative effectiveness of long-term outcomes data. The objective of this study was to compare long-term outcomes of different surgical approaches for aortic root repair in Medicare patients using The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database-Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services-linked data.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was performed by querying the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database for patients aged 65 years or more who underwent elective aortic root repair with or without aortic valve replacement. Primary long-term end points were mortality, any stroke, and aortic valve reintervention. Short-term outcomes and long-term survival were compared among each root repair strategy. Additional risk factors for mortality after aortic root repair were assessed with a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model.

RESULTS

A total of 4173 patients aged 65 years or more underwent elective aortic root repair. Patients were stratified by operative strategy: mechanical Bentall, stented bioprosthetic Bentall, stentless bioprosthetic Bentall, or valve-sparing root replacement. Mean follow-up was 5.0 (±4.6) years. Relative to mechanical Bentall, stented bioprosthetic Bentall (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.80; confidence interval, 0.66-0.97) and stentless bioprosthetic Bentall (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.70; confidence interval, 0.59-0.84) were associated with better long-term survival. In addition, stentless bioprosthetic Bentall (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.64; confidence interval, 0.47-0.80) and valve-sparing root replacement (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.51; confidence interval, 0.29-0.90) were associated with lower long-term risk of stroke. Aortic valve reintervention risk was 2-fold higher after valve-sparing root replacement compared with other operative strategies.

CONCLUSIONS

In the Medicare population, there was poorer late survival and greater late stroke risk for patients undergoing mechanical Bentall and a higher rate of reintervention for valve-sparing root replacement. Bioprosthetic Bentall may be the procedure of choice in older patients undergoing aortic root repair, particularly in the era of transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

Bentall Operation: Early Surgical Results, Seven-Year Outcomes, and Risk Factors Analysis

Aim: To analyze early and mid-term outcomes of the Bentall operation. Methods: Two hundred and seventeen patients (mean age 65.6 ± 15.9 years, males/females 172/45) underwent Bentall operation in a 7-year period (January 2015−December 2021), on average, 30 Bentall operations occurred per year, using biological (n = 104) or mechanical (n = 113) valved conduits for the treatment of ascending aorta−aortic root aneurysms. Associate procedures were performed in 58 patients (26.7%); coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in 35 (16%). Mean follow-up was 55.2 ± 24 (median 60.2) months. Cox model analysis was used to assess risk factors, Kaplan−Meier and log-rank tests were used to assess different survival rates. Results: Operative mortality was 1.38%. At 7 years, survival, freedom from cardiac death, and event-free survival were 93% ± 2%, 99% ± 1%, and 81% ± 5%. NYHA class (p < 0.0001), trans-aortic valve mean (p < 0.0001) and maximum (p < 0.000) gradients, left ventricular hypertrophy (p < 0.05), and pulmonary arterial pressure (p = 0.002) significantly improved vs. preoperative values. Concomitant CABG during Bentall operation independently affected late outcomes (HR 1.9−2.3; p-values < 0.05). Late survival was affected by concomitant CABG (84% ± 8% vs. 95% ± 2%, p = 0.04), preoperative myocardial infarction (91% ± 9% vs. 97% ± 2%, p = 0.02), and biological vs. mechanical prostheses valved conduits (91% ± 9% vs. 95% ± 3%, p = 0.02). Event-free survival also was affected by concomitant CABG (62% ± 14% vs. 85% ± 5%, p = 0.005) and biological prostheses (78% ± 8% vs. 84% ± 6%, p = 0.06). Freedom from endocarditis−redo operation was 83% ± 9% for biological prostheses vs. 89% ± 6% for mechanical prostheses (p = 0.49). Conclusions: Low rates of operative mortality and late complications make Bentall operation the gold standard for the treatment of ascending aorta−aortic root aneurysms. Coronary ischemic disease affects late outcomes. Biological prostheses should be preferred for the elderly.

Valve-Preserving Root Reimplantation Combined with Arch Procedure: Optimizing Patient Selection

OBJECTIVE

Patients with thoracic aortic disease commonly present with concomitant multisegment pathology. We describe the patient population, analyze outcomes, and define the patient selection strategy for valve-preserving aortic root reimplantation (VPARR) combined with the arch procedure. Methods: From 2008 to 2018, 98 patients underwent VPARR combined with the aortic arch procedure (hemi-arch, 50% [n = 49, limited repair]; total arch, 50% [n = 49, complete repair] including 39 with elephant trunk). Indications for surgery were aneurysmal disease (61%) and aortic dissection (39%). The median follow-up was 17 months (IQR, 8 to 60 months). Results: There were no operative deaths or paraplegia, and 5 patients underwent re-exploration for bleeding. During follow-up, 2 patients required aortic valve replacement for severe aortic insufficiency at 1 and 5 years, and 4 patients died. In the limited repair group, 1 patient underwent reintervention for aortic arch replacement, whereas 4 patients underwent planned intervention (1 endovascular and 3 open thoracoabdominal aortic repair). In the complete repair group, 23 patients underwent planned intervention (15 endovascular and 8 open thoracoabdominal repair). Conclusions: Single-stage, complete, proximal aortic repair including VPARR combined with total aortic arch replacement is as safe and feasible to perform as limited arch repair and facilitates further intervention in carefully selected patients with diffuse aortic pathology at centers of expertise.

Comparison of Outcomes of Patients Undergoing Reimplantation versus Bentall Root Procedure

Background  A bioprosthesis- or mechanical-prosthesis–containing polyester graft (composite graft) is standard surgical management for aortic root aneurysms (Bentall procedure), but particularly in the young patient in whom a bioprosthesis is likely to deteriorate and a mechanical prosthesis mandates life-long anticoagulation, valve-sparing procedures have been devised. One such procedure involves reimplantation of the native aortic valve in the polyester graft. With focus on selecting the optimum procedure for young relatively asymptomatic patients, we compared outcomes of reimplantation of the aortic valve versus the Bentall procedure and identified factors influencing outcomes.

Methods  From January 2000 to January 2017, 643 adults age ≤ 70 with tricuspid aortic valves underwent elective aortic root replacement with either reimplantation ( n  = 448/70%) or a composite valve graft (Bentall) procedure ( n  = 195/30%). Outcomes were compared in 100 propensity-matched pairs.

Results  Patients with fewer symptoms, less aortic regurgitation (AR), higher left ventricular ejection fraction, and smaller cross-sectional aortic area/height ratio had a higher likelihood of valve repair with reimplantation (all p  < 0.02) versus receiving a Bentall procedure. Operative mortality was 0.16% (reimplantation, 1/448, 0.22%; Bentall 0/195, 0%). After reimplantation, 8-year freedom from severe AR was 95% and 10-year freedom from reintervention was 98%. Ten-year survival was 95%. Higher preoperative AR grade ( p  < 0.0001) but not larger root diameter ( p  = 0.3) was associated with higher grade of late regurgitation after a reimplantation procedure. Among propensity-matched patients, reimplantation compared with a Bentall was associated with similar 10-year survival (89% vs. 94%), but more late AR (8-year freedom from severe AR: 93% vs. 99.9%) and greater early reduction in, but similar late, left ventricular mass (104 vs. 105 g•m ^–2 at 8 years).

Conclusion  Excellent aortic valve reimplantation results versus Bentall lead us to recommend reimplantation more often in patients who present with even moderately severe or severe AR and significantly enlarged aortic roots.

Impact of ascending aortic prosthetic grafts on early postoperative descending aortic biomechanics on cardiac magnetic resonance imaging

OBJECTIVES

Among patients with ascending thoracic aortic aneurysms, prosthetic graft replacement yields major benefits but risk for recurrent aortic events persists for which mechanism is poorly understood. This pilot study employed cardiac magnetic resonance to test the impact of proximal prosthetic grafts on downstream aortic flow and vascular biomechanics.

METHODS

Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging was prospectively performed in patients with thoracic aortic aneurysms undergoing surgical (Dacron) prosthetic graft implantation. Imaging included time resolved (4-dimensional) phase velocity encoded cardiac magnetic resonance for flow quantification and cine-cardiac magnetic resonance for aortic wall distensibility/strain.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine patients with thoracic aortic aneurysms undergoing proximal aortic graft replacement were studied; cardiac magnetic resonance was performed pre- [12 (4, 21) days] and postoperatively [6.4 (6.2, 7.2) months]. Postoperatively, flow velocity and wall shear stress increased in the arch and descending aorta (P < 0.05); increases were greatest in hereditary aneurysm patients. Global circumferential strain correlated with wall shear stress (r = 0.60-0.72, P < 0.001); strain increased postoperatively in the native descending and thoraco-abdominal aorta (P < 0.001). Graft-induced changes in biomechanical properties of the distal native ascending aorta were associated with post-surgical changes in descending aortic wall shear stress, as evidenced by correlations (r = -0.39-0.52; P ≤ 0.05) between graft-induced reduction of ascending aortic distensibility and increased distal native aortic wall shear stress following grafting.

CONCLUSIONS

Prosthetic graft replacement of the ascending aorta increases downstream aortic wall shear stress and strain. Postoperative increments in descending aortic wall shear stress correlate with reduced ascending aortic distensibility, suggesting that grafts provide a nidus for high energy flow and adverse distal aortic remodelling.

Aortic root replacement with bicuspid valve reimplantation: Are outcomes and valve durability comparable to those of tricuspid valve reimplantation?

OBJECTIVES

To assess intermediate-term outcomes of aortic root replacement with valve-sparing reimplantation of bicuspid aortic valves (BAV), compared with tricuspid aortic valves (TAV).

METHODS

From January 2002 to July 2017, 92 adults underwent aortic root replacement with BAV reimplantation and 515 with TAV reimplantation at the Cleveland Clinic. Balancing-score matching based on 28 preoperative variables yielded 71 well-matched BAV and TAV pairs (77% of possible pairs) for comparison of postoperative mortality and morbidity, longitudinal echocardiogram data, aortic valve reoperation, and survival.

RESULTS

In the BAV group, 1 hospital death occurred (1.1%); mortality among all reimplantations was 0.2%. Among matched patients, procedural morbidity was low and similar between BAV and TAV groups (1 stroke in TAV group; renal failure requiring dialysis, 1 patient each; red cell transfusion, 25% each). Five-year results: Severe aortic regurgitation was present in 7.4% of the BAV group and 2.9% of the TAV group (P = .7); 39% of BAV and 65% of TAV patients had none. Higher mean gradients (10 vs 7.4 mm Hg; P = .001) and left ventricular mass index (111 vs 101 g/m2; P = .5) were present in BAV patients. Freedom from aortic valve reoperation was 94% in the BAV group and 98% in the TAV group (P = .10), and survival was 100% and 95%, respectively (P = .07).

CONCLUSIONS

Both BAV and TAV reimplantations can be performed with equal safety and good midterm outcomes; however, the constellation of higher gradients, less ventricular reverse remodeling, and more aortic valve reoperations with BAV reimplantations raises concerns requiring continued long-term surveillance.

Fifteen-Year Outcomes Following Valve-Sparing Aortic Root Replacement in Elderly Patients

BACKGROUND

Valve-sparing aortic root replacement (VSRR) techniques have several advantages such as preservation of physiological haemodynamics of the native aortic valve and avoidance of prosthetic valve-related complications. However, VSRR procedures are generally performed in young patients and the long-term results in elderly patients (≥65 years) are scarce.

METHODS

Fifty-six (56) consecutive patients underwent VSRR surgery by a single surgeon at the current centre between January 2006 and December 2013; a modified "remodelling technique" was typically performed. The mean age was 58.86±12.5 years; Marfan syndrome and bicuspid aortic valve were both present in six patients (10.7%); 38 patients (67.8%) presented with greater than moderate aortic regurgitation; and 17 patients (30.4%) were in New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III before surgery. They were divided into two groups according to their ages receiving VSRR surgery: Group E (elderly patients aged ≥65 years, n=24) and Group Y (young patients aged <65 years, n=32). The primary outcomes were aortic valve-related reoperation, cardiovascular reoperation, all-cause mortality, and functional status.

RESULTS

One (1) patient in Group E was converted to aortic valve replacement as a result of a failed aortic valve repair. No perioperative mortality was observed. The mean follow-up was 11.5±2.9 years. Aortic valve-related reoperation was noted in two patients of each group (one with endocarditis, one with severe aortic regurgitation). Cardiovascular reoperations were observed in three and six patients, and all-cause deaths in seven and two patients in Group E and Group Y, respectively. The 10-year freedom from aortic valve-related reoperation was estimated to be 91.7±5.6% and 92.7±5.0% (p=0.594), the 10-year freedom from cardiovascular reoperation was 86.4±7.3% and 81.1±7.7% (p=0.781), and the cumulative 10-year survival rates were 74.0±9.2% and 93.8±4.3% (p=0.018) in Group E and Group Y, respectively. During follow-up, 6.7% of patients were in NYHA class III and 6.4% of patients developed moderate-to-severe aortic regurgitation. Cox regression analysis failed to identify predictors for primary outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Valve-sparing aortic root replacement can safely be performed in elderly patients with low early mortality and satisfactory long-term freedom from aortic valve-related and cardiovascular re-intervention.

Valve Sparing Root Replacement versus Bio-Bentall: Inverse Propensity Weighting of 796 Patients

BACKGROUND

This large cohort, single center study aims to compare the 10-year survival and freedom from aortic valve reintervention between valve sparing root replacement (VSRR) and bioprosthetic Bentall (bio-Bentall).

METHODS

All patients undergoing elective VSRR or bio-Bentall for aortic root aneurysm between March 2005 through October 2019 were retrospectively reviewed (n=796 [VSRR = 360]). Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) balanced clinical variables between groups. Mean follow-up was 58.0 +/- 45.4 (range 0-167) months.

RESULTS

After IPTW adjustment, 10-year survival did not differ between groups (VSRR: 87.0% vs bio-Bentall: 92.7%, p=0.780). Cumulative incidence of aortic valve reintervention was 5.9% for VSRR (95% CI, 2.9%-10.4%) and 10.6% for bio-Bentall (95% CI, 6.2%-16.4%, p=0.798). Fine and Gray computing risk regression model identified age at surgery (sHR 0.97, 95% CI, 0.95-0.99, p=0.015), body surface area (sHR 6.21, 95% CI, 1.97-19.59, p=0.002) and bicuspid aortic valve (sHR 2.15, 95% CI, 1.04-4.44, p =0.038) as independently associated with aortic valve reintervention. For patients ≤50-year-old, cumulative incidence of aortic valve reintervention was 16.2% for VSRR (95% CI, 7.0%-28.8%) and 17.8% for bio-Bentall (95% CI, 6.9%-32.8%)(p=0.363).

CONCLUSIONS

VSRR and bio-Bentall show similar excellent survival and freedom from aortic reintervention rates up to 10 years; however, a durable valve solution for young patients with bicuspid aortic valve remains a challenge.

Combined Transcatheter Replacement of Aortic Root and Mitral Valve in an Acute Preclinical Study

The study aimed to evaluate the early feasibility of endovascular replacement of ascending aorta, aortic root (including aortic valve, AV), and mitral valve (MV) in one procedure with two self-expandable prostheses. Aortic valved-fenestrated-bifurcated (AVFB) and MV endografts of 10 healthy pigs (60-65kg) were customized and delivered through transapical and transseptal approach, respectively. Both endografts were successfully deployed in nine pigs (90%). Eight survived over 24 h, and the acute success rate was 80%. There was no significant increase in the mean trans-aortic, trans-mitral, and trans-LVOT pressure gradients after the operation. No coronary artery or LVOT obstruction and other electrocardiographic abnormality occurred. The transvalvular and paravalvular leak rates were low for both valves. Endovascular replacement of ascending aorta, AV, and MV in one procedure might be feasible. Combined transcatheter replacement of aortic root and mitral valve in one procedure.

Incidence, Cause, and Outcome of Reinterventions after Aortic Root Replacement

BACKGROUND

This study aims to comprehensively characterize the details of the aortic and aortic valve reinterventions after aortic root replacement (ARR).

METHODS

Between 2005 and 2019, 882 patients underwent ARR. The indication was for aneurysm in 666, aortic valve-related in 116, aortic dissection in 64, and infective endocarditis (IE) in 36. Valve-sparing root replacement was performed in 290 while Bio-Bentall was done in 528. Among them, 52 (5.9%) patients required reintervention. The incidence, cause, and time to reintervention, as well as outcomes after reintervention were investigated. Cause-Specific Cox hazard model was performed to identify predictors for reintervention after ARR.

RESULTS

The 10-year cumulative incidence of aortic and aortic valve reintervention after ARR was 10.3% [95%CI, 7.3%-14.0%]. Age per year decrease was the only independent predictor for reintervention [sHR, 0.97; 95%CI, 0.95-0.99]. The causes for 52 reinterventions were: 29 (55.8%) for aortic valve causes including aortic stenosis/insufficiency, and prosthetic valve dysfunction; 15 (28.9%) for IE; 7 (13.5%) for aortic-related causes including pseudoaneurysm, development of aneurysm, and residual dissection; and 1 (1.9%) for coronary button pseudoaneurysm. Median times to reintervention were 11.0 [IQR, 2.0-20.5] months for IE, 24.0 [IQR, 3.7-46.1] months for aortic-related causes, 77.0 [IQR, 28.4-97.6] months for aortic valve-related causes (p=.005). Overall in-hospital mortality after the reinterventions was 7.7% (4/52) with 20.0% with IE (3/15) .

CONCLUSIONS

Reintervention for IE occurs relatively early after ARR while aortic valve- and aortic-related reinterventions gradually increase over time. In-hospital mortality after the reintervention is low, unless it is for IE.

Long-term survival after xenograft versus homograft aortic root replacement: Results from a prospective randomized trial

OBJECTIVE

The study objective was to investigate the long-term survival of patients undergoing xenograft versus homograft full root aortic valve replacement.

METHODS

A total of 166 patients requiring aortic valve surgery were randomized to undergo the Freestyle (Medtronic Inc, Minneapolis, Minn) bioprosthesis (N = 90) or a homograft (N = 76) full root aortic valve replacement between 1997 and 2005 in a single institution. Six patients randomly assigned to the homograft crossed over to the Freestyle bioprosthesis because of the unavailability of suitably sized homografts. All surgeons were required to adhere to the standard surgical technique for homograft root implantation previously described. Follow-up was 98.5% complete.

RESULTS

The mean age of the study population was 65 ± 8 years. Coronary artery bypass grafting was associated with root aortic valve replacement in 76 of 166 patients (46%, P = not significant between groups), and overall hospital mortality was 4.8% (8/166, P = not significant between groups). Median follow-up was 13.8 years (range, 0-21.8 years; 2033 patient-years). The Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed that there was no significant difference in overall survival between the 2 arms at 5, 10, and 15 years. Twenty-year survival was 28.3% ± 5% for the Freestyle group versus 25.1% ± 5.7% for the homograft group (P = .90), which was comparable to the age- and sex-matched UK general population. The freedom from aortic valve reoperation at 20 years was comparable for the Freestyle group versus the homograft group (67.9% ± 8.8% vs 67.2% ± 10.3%, respectively; P = .74).

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study to investigate the long-term survival of xenograft versus homograft full root aortic valve replacement from a prospective randomized trial. The observed 20-year overall survival and freedom from aortic valve reoperation serve as a benchmark for future studies on interventions for aortic valve disease in the elderly.

Brazilian Single-Center Experience with Aortic Root Replacement in 448 Patients: What Is the Best Technique?

Introduction

The objective of this study was to evaluate whether a surgery with the use of valved conduit is capable of leading to better immediate and late results than those obtained by the valve-sparing aortic root reconstruction technique.

Methods

Between January 2002 and June 2016, 448 patients underwent aortic root reconstruction. These were divided into three groups according to the technique used: 319 (71.2%) patients received mechanical valved conduits, 49 (10.9%) received biological valved conduits, and 80 (17.9%) underwent the valve-sparing aortic root reconstruction technique. The results were examined by univariate and multivariate analyses of Cox proportional hazards models with multiple logistic regression.

Results

The hospital mortality rate was 7.5%. The mortality rates were 8.2%, 12%, and 2.5% in the mechanical valved conduit, biological valved conduit, and aortic valve-sparing groups, respectively, with no significant difference between groups (P=0.1). Thromboembolic complications and reoperation-free survival were also similar (P=0.169 and P=0.688). However, valve-sparing aortic root replacement was superior in terms of long-term survival (P<0.001), hemorrhagic-free survival (P<0.001), and endocarditis-free survival (P=0.048). Multivariate analysis showed that the following aspects had an impact on mortality: age > 70 years (P<0.001; hazard ratio [HR] 1.05), preoperative acute kidney injury (P<0.0042; HR 2.9), diagnosis of dissection (P<0.01; HR 2.0), previous cardiac surgery (P<0.027; HR 2.3), associated coronary artery bypass grafting (P<0.038; HR 1.8), reoperation for postoperative tamponade (P<0.004; HR 2.2) and postoperative acute kidney injury (P<0.02; HR 3.35).

Conclusion

Valve-sparing technique seems to be the operation of choice, whenever possible, for aortic root reconstruction.

Sharing of decision-making for infective endocarditis surgery: a narrative review of clinical and ethical implications

Infective endocarditis (IE) is nowadays one of the most challenging disease in cardiac surgery because of its multifaceted clinical and anatomical presentation. Despite the many clinical and surgical advances achieved in the past 60 years, there is a lack of evidence regarding the ideal strategy. The present review aims to investigate and highlight two main novel concepts for the decision-making of the best substitute. Firstly, the concept of an "endocarditis team": a coordinated multidisciplinary effort in the diagnostic work-up, especially in conditions of high risk of embolization or clinical deterioration. A good "endocarditis team" has the role to overcome such problem, in order to ensure a prompt and balanced strategy. Secondly, which ethical considerations are required to drive the choice of valvular substitute. The choice of best valve substitute is a relevant issue of debate, not only with operative but also prognostic and accordingly ethical aftermaths. Many different solutions have been developed to substitute the infected valve. Among these: mechanical prosthesis (MP), biological stented prosthesis (BP), sutureless bioprosthesis and cryopreserved homografts (CHs). Patients need to be informed in detail about the technical issues pertaining the use of these valve substitute. We will discuss the evidences regarding the risk of recurrent infections or future potentially severe calcification of aortic homograft valve and wall (in other words, the failure of the homograft) and the difficulties in managing the reoperation.

Prosthetic aortic graft replacement of the ascending thoracic aorta alters biomechanics of the native descending aorta as assessed by transthoracic echocardiography

Introduction

In patients with ascending aortic (AA) aneurysms, prosthetic graft replacement yields benefit but risk for complications in the descending aorta persists. Longitudinal impact of AA grafts on native descending aortic physiology is poorly understood.

Methods

Transthoracic echocardiograms (echo) in patients undergoing AA elective surgical grafting were analyzed: Descending aortic deformation indices included global circumferential strain (GCS), time to peak (TTP) strain, and fractional area change (FAC). Computed tomography (CT) was used to assess aortic wall thickness and calcification.

Results

46 patients undergoing AA grafting were studied; 65% had congenital or genetically-associated AA (30% bicuspid valve, 22% Marfan, 13% other): After grafting (6.4±7.5 months), native descending aortic distension increased, irrespective of whether assessed based on circumferential strain or area-based methods (both p<0.001). Increased distensibility paralleled altered kinetics, as evidenced by decreased time to peak strain (p = 0.01) and increased velocity (p = 0.002). Augmented distensibility and flow velocity occurred despite similar pre- and post-graft blood pressure and medications (all p = NS), and was independent of pre-surgical aortic regurgitation or change in left ventricular stroke volume (both p = NS). Magnitude of change in GCS and FAC was 5–10 fold greater among patients with congenital or genetically associated AA vs. degenerative AA (p<0.001), paralleling larger descending aortic size, greater wall thickness, and higher prevalence of calcific atherosclerotic plaque in the degenerative group (all p<0.05). In multivariate analysis, congenital/genetically associated AA etiology conferred a 4-fold increment in magnitude of augmented native descending aortic strain after proximal grafting (B = 4.19 [CI 1.6, 6.8]; p = 0.002) independent of age and descending aortic size.

Conclusions

Prosthetic graft replacement of the ascending aorta increases magnitude and rapidity of distal aortic distension. Graft effects are greatest with congenital or genetically associated AA, providing a potential mechanism for increased energy transmission to the native descending aorta and adverse post-surgical aortic remodeling.

Valve-Sparing Root Replacement Versus Composite Valve Grafting in Aortic Root Dilation: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Aortic valve-sparing operations theoretically have fewer stroke and bleeding complications but may increase late reoperation risk versus composite valve grafts.

METHODS

We meta-analyzed all studies comparing aortic valve-sparing (reimplantation and remodelling) and composite valve-grafting (bioprosthetic and mechanical) procedures. Early outcomes were all-cause mortality, reoperation for bleeding, myocardial infarction, and thromboembolism/stroke. Long-term outcomes included all-cause mortality, reintervention, bleeding, and thromboembolism/stroke. Studies exclusively investigating dissection or pediatric populations were excluded.

RESULTS

A total of 3794 patients who underwent composite valve grafting and 2424 who underwent aortic valve-sparing procedures were included from 9 adjusted and 17 unadjusted observational studies. Mean follow-up was 5.8 ± 3.0 years. Aortic valve sparing was not associated with any difference in early mortality, bleeding, myocardial infarction, or thromboembolic complications. Late mortality was significantly lower after valve sparing (incident risk ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54-0.87; P < .01). Late thromboembolism/stroke (incident rate ratio, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.22-0.60; P < .01) and bleeding (incident rate ratio, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.11-0.42; P < .01) risks were lower after valve sparing. Procedure type did not affect late reintervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Aortic valve sparing appears to be safe and associated with reduced late mortality, thromboembolism/stroke, and bleeding compared with composite valve grafting. Late durability is equivalent. Aortic valve sparing should be considered in patients with favorable aortic valve morphology.

David aortic valve-sparing reimplantation versus biological aortic root replacement: a retrospective analysis of 411 patients

Objectives

This study aimed to compare short- and long-term results for patients undergoing either aortic valve-sparing reimplantation (David) procedure (AVr-D) or biological aortic root replacement (Bentall) procedure (ARr-B-bio) for aortic root pathology.

Methods

We compared outcomes for patients who underwent AVr-D (n = 261) or ARr-B-bio (n = 150) between 2000 and 2015 at our institution. The mean age of patients was 55 ± 13 years and 21.7% (n = 89) were female. ARr-B-bio patients were significantly older than AVr-D patients (58 ± 10 vs 53 ± 15 years, p < 0.001) and had a significantly lower incidence of connective tissue disorders (2.0% vs 16.9%, p < 0.001). Follow-up was complete in 88% of patients.

Results

Mortality at 30 days was 1.2% (n = 5) overall, at 0.4% (n = 1) significantly lower in the AVr-D group compared with 2.7% (n = 4) in the ARr-B-bio group (p = 0.04). Postoperative low cardiac output was more common in ARr-B-bio patients (n = 4) versus AVr-D patients (n = 0; p = 0.008). The occurrence of postoperative strokes was 2.2% (n = 9) in both groups, without significant differences (p = 0.84). Five- and ten-year survival was 93.7 ± 1.8% and 84.4 ± 4.7% in patients who received AVr-D and 90.9 ± 2.6% and 84.6 ± 5.4% for ARr-B-bio patients (log-rank p = 0.37). Using Cox regression analysis, age (HR 1.06; 95% CI 1.02-1.10, p = 0.002), smoking (HR 2.74; 95% CI 1.28-5.86, p = 0.01), and emergency surgery (HR 6.58; 95% CI 1.69-25.54, p = 0.007) were found to be independent predictors of long-term mortality.There was no difference in freedom from reoperation between AVr-D (89.4 ± 3.4% at 10 years) and ARr-B-bio (80.4 ± 7.5% at 10 years, log-rank p = 0.66) patients, nor for freedom from stroke, bleeding, myocardial infarction, or endocarditis during follow-up.

Conclusions

Short-term outcomes for both AVr-D and ARr-B-bio are excellent in patients with aortic root pathology. The long-term outcomes were associated with comparable survival and freedom from reoperation. AVr-D may be preferable to ARr-B-bio in patients with suitable pathoanatomy.

The American Association for Thoracic Surgery consensus guidelines on bicuspid aortic valve-related aortopathy: Full online-only version

Bicuspid aortic valve disease is the most common congenital cardiac disorder, being present in 1% to 2% of the general population. Associated aortopathy is a common finding in patients with bicuspid aortic valve disease, with thoracic aortic dilation noted in approximately 40% of patients in referral centers. Several previous consensus statements and guidelines have addressed the management of bicuspid aortic valve-associated aortopathy, but none focused entirely on this disease process. The current guidelines cover all major aspects of bicuspid aortic valve aortopathy, including natural history, phenotypic expression, histology and molecular pathomechanisms, imaging, indications for surgery, surveillance, and follow-up, and recommendations for future research. It is intended to provide clinicians with a current and comprehensive review of bicuspid aortic valve aortopathy and to guide the daily management of these complex patients.

Aortic Valve Repair: From Concept to Future Targets

Aortic valve repair has become an important treatment alternative to patients with aortic insufficiency. In this paper, we review refinements and advances in the understanding of core concepts of aortic valve anatomy and pathophysiology which have enhanced our approach to aortic valve preservation and repair. With these improvements in understanding and techniques, the outcome for aortic valve repair continues to improve. We also review current challenges in the field and explore potential areas of innovation and future study including timing of surgical intervention for aortic insufficiency, comparisons between aortic valve repair and replacement in randomized trials, and development of personalized surgical management plan based on patient-specific pathologies. These advances will further establish the role of aortic valve repair in the management of aortic valve and aortic disease.

Aortic root changes before and after surgery for chronic aortic dilatation: A 3D echocardiographic study

BACKGROUND

Quantitative 3D assessment of the aortic root may improve planning and success of aortic valve (AV)-sparing operations.

AIMS

To use 3D transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) to assess the effect of chronic aortic dilatation on aortic root shape and aortic regurgitation (AR) severity and to examine the effects of AV-sparing operations.

METHODS AND RESULTS

To determine the changes with chronic aortic dilatation, we studied 48 patients, 23 with aortic dilatation (Group 1 ≤ mild AR, n = 13; Group 2 ≥ moderate AR, n = 10) and 25 Controls. To determine the changes in AV-sparing operations, a subgroup of 15 patients were examined pre- and post surgery. 3D-TEE images were analyzed using multiplanar reconstruction (QLAB, Philips, Philips Medical Systems, Andover, MA, USA) to obtain aortic root areas, diameters, and lengths. We also calculated a novel parameter called total coaptation surface area (TCoapSA), which sums the contact surface area of all the AV cusps. Compared to Controls, Groups 1 and 2 had significantly larger aortic root areas, inter-commissural distances, and cusp heights. Compared to Group 1 and Controls, Group 2 had significantly smaller TCoapSA when adjusted for aortic annular area (P = 0.001) with shorter coaptation height (P < 0.001). In patients undergoing AV-sparing surgery, TCoapSA was significantly larger post surgery (P = 0.001) with greater coaptation height (P < 0.001) and smaller inter-commissural distances (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The aortic valve is a dynamic structure that remodels in response to aortic dilatation. Successful valve-sparing surgery corrects these changes. Quantitative modeling of the aortic valve and root could potentially improve the repair to the individual patients and modify outcomes.

Valve-Sparing Root Replacement in Elderly Patients With Annuloaortic Ectasia

BACKGROUND

We report early and midterm outcomes of elderly patients who underwent valve-sparing root replacement (VSRR) compared with younger patients and those with Bentall procedure.

METHODS

From October 1999 to October 2017, 73 patients greater than or equal to 65 years of age who underwent VSRR procedure were assigned as group S. Two hundred thirty-two VSRR patients who were between 15 and 64 years of age were assigned as group Y. Forty-five patients greater than or equal to 65 years of age who underwent Bentall procedure were assigned as group R. Preoperative grades of aortic regurgitation were 3.4 of 4 in group S, 3.1 of 4 in group Y, and 3.3 of 4 in group R (p = 0.07).

RESULTS

Hospital mortality was found in 1 (1.4%) patient in group S, 3 (6.7%) in group R, and 2 (0.9%) in group Y. Postoperative survival at 5 years was 88.5% in group S, 98.7% in group Y, and 82.4% in group R (p < 0.01). Freedom from more than mild aortic regurgitation at 5 years was 81.0% in group S and 85.4% in group Y. Follow-up echocardiography disclosed an effective aortic valve orifice area of 1.76 cm² in group R, 2.40 cm² in group Y, and 2.41 cm² in group S (p < 0.01), and peak pressure gradient across the aortic valve was 17.7 mm Hg in group R, 13.6 mm Hg in group Y, and 10.8 mm Hg in group S (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Similar early and late outcomes were achieved in elder VSRR patients compared with younger patients. A better postoperative valve performance was demonstrated in VSRR patients than patients undergoing valve-replacement.

Valve Sparing Root Replacement Provides Similar Midterm Outcomes in Bicuspid and Trileaflet Valves

BACKGROUND

Valve-sparing aortic root replacement (VSRR) is an established treatment for aortic root pathology for trileaflet valves. The safety and durability of VSRR in bicuspid aortopathy is unclear. In this study, outcomes of performing VSRR in the setting of bicuspid and trileaflet valves were compared.

METHODS

An institutional database identified 294 patients who underwent VSRR from 2005 to 2017. Of these, 225 had trileaflet valves and 69 had bicuspid valves. Patients were followed prospectively and had annual postoperative echocardiograms. Propensity-matched comparisons were made between trileaflet and bicuspid valve patients.

RESULTS

The average patient age for trileaflet valves was 46.0 ± 13.5 versus 42.7 ± 12.2 years for bicuspid patients (p = 0.07). There was a higher presence of preoperative >2+ aortic insufficiency (AI) present in bicuspid patients (63.8%) compared with trileaflet patients (31.1%) (p < 0.01). Mean follow-up was 39 months and was 98% complete. At 5 years, the cumulative incidence of >2+ AI and aortic valve replacement (AVR) was 2.0% and 4.3% in trileaflet patients and 7.7% (p = 0.75) and 7.7% (p = 0.81) in bicuspid patients. Preoperative >2+ AI was not predictive of >2+ postoperative AI (p = 0.62) nor AVR (p = 0.49). Five-year survival was no different between groups (trileaflet: 98%, bicuspid: 84%, p = 0.24).

CONCLUSIONS

VSRR can be safely and effectively performed in patients with trileaflet and bicuspid valves. Operative outcomes and valve function were equivalent in bicuspid and trileaflet patients in midterm follow-up. Performance of VSRR is a viable term option in the setting bicuspid aortic valve aortopathy.