Reoperative aortic root replacement: Outcome in a contemporary series

Transcatheter valve-in-valve interventions after aortic root replacement: A systematic review

Structural valve deterioration after aortic root replacement (ARR) surgery may be treated by transcatheter valve-in-valve (ViV-TAVI) intervention. However, several technical challenges and outcomes are not well described. The aim of the present review was to analyze the outcomes of ViV-TAVI in deteriorated ARR. This review included studies reporting any form of transcatheter valvular intervention in patients with a previous ARR. All forms of ARR were considered, as long as the entire root was replaced. Pubmed, ScienceDirect, SciELO, DOAJ, and Cochrane library databases were searched until September 2023. Overall, 86 patients were included from 31 articles that met our inclusion criteria out of 741 potentially eligible studies. In the entire population, the mean time from ARR to reintervention was 11.0 years (range: 0.33-22). The most frequently performed techniques/grafts for ARR was homograft (67.4%) and the main indication for intervention was aortic regurgitation (69.7%). Twenty-three articles reported no postoperative complications. Six (7.0%) patients required permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) after the ViV-TAVI procedure, and 4 (4.7%) patients had a second ViV-TAVI implant. There were three device migrations (3.5%) and 1 stroke (1.2%). Patients with previous ARR present a high surgical risk. ViV-TAVI can be considered in selected patients, despite unique technical challenges that need to be carefully addressed according to the characteristics of the previous surgery and on computed tomography analysis.

True redo-aortic root replacement versus root replacement after any previous surgery

Objective

The impact of previous aortic root replacement (True-Redo) versus any previous operation (Any-Redo) on outcomes after reoperative aortic root replacement (redo-ROOT) is largely unknown. In this first multi-institutional study, the clinical impact True-Redo versus Any-Redo in the setting of redo-ROOT was reviewed.

Methods

From 2004 to 2021, 822 patients underwent redo-ROOT at 2 major academic centers: 638 Any-Redo and 184 True-Redo. Matching based on preoperative demographics and concomitant operations resulted in 174 matched pairs. An independent risk factor analysis was performed to determine risk factors for early and late mortality.

Results

Patients in the True-Redo group were younger, at 49.9 ± 15.1 versus 55.3 ± 14.7 years, P < .001. Concomitant operations were largely similar between the 2 groups, P > .05. Median cardiopulmonary bypass time (P < .001) and aortic crossclamp time (P = .03) were longer for True-Redo group. In-hospital mortality was 13% (109) and was without significant difference between groups, P = .41. Ten-year survival was 78% versus 76% for True-Redo versus Any-Redo groups respectively, P = .7. Landmark survival analysis at 4 years' postoperatively on the matched groups found that patients in the True-Redo group had improved survival outcomes (P = .046). Risk factors of in-hospital mortality consisted of older age (P < .0001), lower ejection fraction (P = .02), and male patient (P = .0003).

Conclusions

Clinical outcomes following redo-ROOT are excellent. Performance of a True-Redo-ROOT does not result in worse in-hospital morbidity or mortality and has improved survival benefit at midterm follow-up when compared with patients in the Any-Redo group. The decision to perform a redo-ROOT must be taken seriously and must be individualized in a patient-specific manner for optimal outcomes.

Redo aortic surgery: Does one versus multiple affect outcomes?

Objective

Redo aortic surgery has a higher risk of morbidity and mortality because it is technically complex due to mediastinal adhesions, infection, and previously implanted prostheses. In this study, we sought to benchmark our single-center experience comparing outcomes in patients undergoing aortic surgery after 1 versus multiple previous cardiac operations.

Methods

Between 2004 and 2019, 429 patients underwent redo aortic surgery. They were classified as aortic surgery after 1 previous surgery (first redo surgery, n = 360) and aortic surgery after 2 or more (multiple) previous surgeries (multiple redo surgery, n = 69). Postoperative outcomes and long-term survival were compared, and risk factors for mortality were identified.

Results

Thirty-day mortality was lower in first redo surgery compared with multiple redo surgery (12.3% vs 21.7%, P = .03). Age, cardiopulmonary bypass time, intra-aortic balloon pump use, postoperative cerebrovascular accident, absence of postoperative atrial fibrillation, intra-aortic balloon pump, and multiple redo surgery were independent predictors of 30-day mortality. Long-term survival was similar at 15 years. Patients who received first redo surgery were older (57.9 ± 14.0 years vs 50.3 ± 15.8 years, P = .0001) and had a higher incidence of hypertension (84.7% vs 73.9%, P = .02), whereas patients who received multiple redo surgery had a higher incidence of cerebrovascular disease (31.9% vs 20.3%, P = .03). Aortic valve replacement was the most common previous operation with higher incidence in multiple redo surgery. Incidence of previous aortic surgery was similar. Cardiopulmonary bypass (246 ± 67.3 minutes vs 219.9 ± 57.5 minutes, P = .009) and crossclamp times (208.2 ± 51.8 vs 181.9 ± 50.8 minutes, P = .004) were longer in multiple redo surgery. Incidence of reentry injury and balloon pump insertion were similar. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation use was higher in multiple redo surgery. Postoperative complications occurred at similar rates, except for higher incidence of dialysis in multiple redo surgery (14.5% vs 7.2%, P = .04).

Conclusions

Multiple redo aortic procedures have a higher morbidity and mortality compared with first redo aortic procedures, with linearly increasing short-term mortality risk but similar long-term survival with the number of redo procedures.

Outcomes of reoperative aortic root surgery

OBJECTIVE

The study objective was to determine the impact of reoperative aortic root replacement on short-term outcomes and survival.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study of aortic root operations from 2010 to 2018. All patients with a complete aortic root replacement were included, and patients undergoing valve-sparing root replacements were excluded. Patients were dichotomized by first-time sternotomy versus redo sternotomy, which was defined as having had a prior sternotomy for whatever reason. Within the redo sternotomy group, reoperative aortic root replacements were identified, being defined as a complete aortic root replacement in patients with a prior aortic root replacement; 1:1 nearest neighbor propensity matching was used to compare outcomes across groups. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates were generated and compared using log-rank statistics.

RESULTS

A total of 893 patients undergoing complete ARR were identified, of whom 595 (67%) underwent first-time sternotomy and 298 (33%) underwent redo sternotomy. After matching, postoperative outcomes were similar for the first-time and redo sternotomy groups, including operative mortality. Redo sternotomy was not associated with reduced survival after aortic root replacement compared with first-time sternotomy (P = .084), with 5-year survival of 73.7% for first-time sternotomy and 72.9% for redo sternotomy. In the redo sternotomy group (n = 298), 69 (23%) were reoperative aortic root replacements and 229 (77%) were first-time aortic root replacements. After matching, postoperative outcomes were similar for the first-time and reoperative aortic root replacement groups, including operative mortality. Reoperative aortic root replacement was not associated with reduced survival, compared with first-time aortic root replacement (P = .870), with 5-year survival of 67.9% for first-time aortic root replacement and 72.1% for reoperative aortic root replacement.

CONCLUSIONS

Reoperative aortic root replacement can be performed safely and provides similar survival to first-time aortic root replacement.

Outcomes of Reoperative Aortic Root Replacement After Previous Acute Type A Dissection Repair

Limited aortic root repair for acute type A dissection is associated with greater risk of proximal reoperations compared to full aortic root replacement. Surgical outcomes for patients undergoing reoperative root replacement after previous dissection repair are unknown. This study seeks to determine outcomes for these patients to further inform the debate surrounding optimal upfront management of the aortic root in acute dissection. Retrospective record review of all patients who underwent full aortic root replacement after a previous type A dissection repair operation at a tertiary academic referral center from 2004-2020 was performed. Among 57 cases of reoperative root replacement after type A repair, 35 cases included concomitant aortic arch replacements, and 21 cases involved coronary reconstruction (unilateral or bilateral modified Cabrol grafts). There were 3 acute postoperative strokes and 4 operative mortalities (composite 30-day and in-hospital deaths, 7.0%). Mid-term outcomes were equivalent for patients who required arch replacement compared to isolated proximal repairs (81.8% vs 80.6% estimated 5-year survival, median follow-up 5.53 years. Reoperative root replacement after index type A dissection repairs, including those with concomitant aortic arch replacement and/or coronary reconstruction is achievable with acceptable outcomes at an experienced aortic center.

Tips and tricks in redo aortic surgery

Redo aortic surgery is challenging, and the operative risk is higher than that in primary aortic surgery. Preoperative imaging is a crucial guide for a safe re-entry. Scrutinized preparing in cannulation and organ protection strategies have affected surgical outcomes. With comprehensive planning and meticulously executed surgery, mortality and morbidity can be acceptable.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12055-021-01322-x.

A Technique for Safe Redo Sternotomy in Patients with Aortic Proximity to the Sternum

The risk of redo sternotomy is greatly elevated in the setting of aortic proximity to the sternum. Current strategies to avoid catastrophic neurologic injury upon sternal reentry include establishment of peripheral bypass with the use of deep hypothermia and low-flow bypass, both of which may increase risk of neurologic complications. Here, we describe a technique for safe sternal reentry and illustrate its successful use in a patient with close proximity of the aorta to the sternum. With this technique, peripheral cardiopulmonary bypass is established prior to sternal reentry via cannulation of the right axillary artery and femoral vein, and the patient is cooled as the innominate artery is dissected, mobilized, and controlled. This permits the rapid institution of selective antegrade cerebral perfusion (SACP) in the event of aortic injury during sternal reentry. Once the innominate artery is isolated and SACP is initiated, one can safely complete the redo sternotomy, dissection, and distal ascending aortic cross-clamping to continue the operation without interruption in cerebral blood flow. This technique offers a safe approach in select patients and should be utilized in similar high-risk cases.

Preservation of the Aortic Root During Type A Aortic Dissection Surgery: An Effective Strategy?

Background  Management of the aortic root during acute Type A aortic dissection (TAAD) repair remains controversial in term of long-term evolution and reoperation. The aim of this study was to assess the long-term outcomes of the aortic root after conservative management during primary surgery.

Methods  One hundred sixty-four consecutive patients were included in this monocentric retrospective study. The primary endpoint was reoperation on the aortic root during long-term follow-up. Forty-six patients had aortic root replacement (ARR) and 118 had supracoronary aortic replacement (SCR). The 10-year survival, occurrence of significant aortic regurgitation, and radiologic aortic root dilatation in each group were assessed during follow-up.

Results  Patients from ARR group were younger than those from SCR group ( p  < 0.0001). Median follow-ups of ARR group and SCR group are 4.4 (interquartile range [IR]: 2.6–8.3) and 6.15 (IR: 2.8–10.53) years, respectively. Reoperation of the aortic root during long-term follow-up was similar in both groups (ARR group: 5.1%, SCR group: 3.3%, p  = 0.636). The 10-year survivals of ARR and SCR groups were 64.8 ± 12.3% and 46.3 ± 5.8% ( p  = 0.012), respectively. Long-term significant aortic regurgitation occurred in one patient (1.7%) and seven patients (7.6%) of the ARR and SCR groups ( p  = 0.176), respectively. Radiologic aortic root diameters in the SCR group were similar between postoperative period and follow-up studies ( p  = 0.58). Reoperation on the distal aorta ( p  = 0.012) and patent radiologic false lumen of the descending aorta ( p  = 0.043) were independent risk factors of late death.

Conclusion  SCR is an effective technique for primary TAAD surgery and does not increase the rate of late reoperation on the aortic root.

Survival after aortic root replacement with a stentless xenograft is determined by patient characteristics

OBJECTIVES

Our objective was to examine intermediate-term survival and reinterventions in unselected patients, stratified according to indication, who received a Freestyle (Medtronic Inc, Minneapolis, Minn) bioprosthesis as a full aortic root replacement.

METHODS

Data from medical records were retrospectively collected for patients who had aortic root replacement using Freestyle bioprostheses between 1999 and 2018 at 6 North-Atlantic centers. Survival status was extracted from national registries and results stratified according to indication for surgery.

RESULTS

We included 1030 implantations in 1008 patients with elective indications for surgery: aneurysm (39.8%), small root (8.3%), and other (13.8%), and urgent/emergent indications: endocarditis (26.7%) and Stanford type A aortic dissection (11.4%). Across indications, 46.3% were nonelective cases and 34.0% were reoperations. Median age was 66.0 (interquartile range, 58.0-71.8) years and median follow-up was 5.0 (interquartile range, 2.6-7.9) years. Thirty-day mortality varied from 2.9% to 27.4% depending on indication. Intermediate survival for 90-day survivors with elective indications were not different from the general population standardized for age and sex (P = .95, .83, and .16 for aneurysms, small roots, and other, respectively). In contrast, patients with endocarditis and type A dissection had excess mortality (P < .001). Freedom from valve reinterventions was 95.0% and 94.4% at 5 and 8 years, respectively. In all, 52 patients (5.2%) underwent reinterventions, most because of endocarditis.

CONCLUSIONS

At intermediate term follow-up this retrospective study provides further support for the use of the Freestyle bioprosthesis in the real-world setting of diverse, complex, and often high-risk aortic root replacement and suggests that outcome is determined by patient and disease, rather than by prosthesis, characteristics.

Re-Operative Aortic Arch Surgery in a Contemporary Series

Re-operative aortic arch operations (REDO) following previous cardiac surgery are challenging procedures associated with significant morbidity and mortality. We investigated post-operative outcomes for patients undergoing REDO and identified risk-factors for mortality in a contemporary series. From 1/2005-6/2018, 365 consecutive patients at an academic center underwent REDO: 257 HEMIARCH and 108 COMPLETE arch (45 stage I elephant trunk, 63 total arch) replacements. Outcomes included mortality and major adverse events. Long-term survival was determined with Kaplan-Meier analysis, and risk-factors for mortality were assessed with Cox proportional hazards regression. Operative mortality for the entire cohort was 6.8%, and rates of stroke, cardiac arrest, and renal failure were 6.0%, 7.4%, and 10.4%. Compared to HEMIARCH, COMPLETE patients had an increased incidence of renal failure requiring dialysis (15.7% vs 8.2%, p = 0.031) and re-exploration for bleeding or delayed chest closure (19.4% vs. 11.7%, p = 0.051). Although operative mortality was similar in both cohorts, long-term follow-up mortality (38.0% vs 26.8%, p = 0.047) was higher among COMPLETE vs. HEMIARCH. Predictors of overall mortality among all-comers undergoing REDO included older age, low body surface area, endocarditis, ejection fraction <30%, emergent status of operation, extended cardiopulmonary bypass duration, intra-aortic balloon pump use, and a more extensive arch operation. Previous aortic surgery was not a risk-factor for mortality. Among all-comers undergoing REDO, survival was 81.4% at 1 year, 66.7% at 5 years, and 56.4% at 10 years of follow-up. While early postoperative outcomes are similar among HEMIARCH and COMPLETE, a more extensive arch-replacement is an independent risk-factor for overall mortality in REDO. Using appropriate clinical indications in the current era, REDO remains a viable option for selected patients.

Outcome of reoperative aortic root or ascending aorta replacement after prior aortic valve replacement

Background

There are limited data regarding the clinical outcomes of reoperative aortic root or ascending aorta replacement after prior aortic valve replacement (AVR). We aimed to analyze outcomes of reoperative aortic root or ascending aorta replacement after prior AVR.

Methods

Eighty patients with prior AVR underwent reoperative aortic root or ascending aorta replacement in our hospital. The indications were root or ascending aortic aneurysm in 36 patients, root or ascending aortic dissection in 37, root false aneurysm in 2, prosthesis valve endocarditis (PVE) with root abscess in 2, Behçet’s disease (BD) with root destruction in 3 patients. An elective surgery was performed in 63 patients and an emergent surgery in 17. The survival and freedom from aortic events during the follow-up were evaluated with the Kaplan-Meier survival curve and the log-rank test.

Results

The operative techniques included ascending aorta replacement in 14 patients, ascending aorta replacement with AVR in 3, prosthesis-sparing root replacement (PSRR) in 35, Bentall procedure in 24, and Cabrol procedure in 4 patients. Operative mortality was 1.3% (1/80). A composite of adverse events occurred in 5 patients, including 1 operative death, 2 stroke and 3 renal failure necessitating hemodialysis. The mean follow-up was 35.5±22.1 months. Five late deaths occurred. The Kaplan-Meier survival at 1 year, 3 years and 6 years were 97.5%, 91.1% and 84.1%, respectively. Aortic events developed in 3 patients. The freedom from aortic events at 1-year, 3-year, and 6-year were 100%, 96.3% and 88.9%, respectively. There were no differences in survival and freedom from aortic events between the elective group and the emergent group.

Conclusions

Reoperative aortic root or ascending aorta replacement after prior AVR could be performed to treat the root or ascending pathologies after AVR, with satisfactory early and midterm outcomes.

Higher Institutional Volume Reduces Mortality in Reoperative Proximal Thoracic Aortic Surgery

Objective  This study aims to determine the impact of institutional volume on mortality in reoperative proximal thoracic aortic surgery patients using national outcomes data.

Methods  The Nationwide Inpatient Sample was queried from 1998 to 2011 for patients with diagnoses of thoracic aneurysm and/or dissection who underwent open mediastinal repair. A total of 103,860 patients were identified. A total of 1,430 patients had prior cardiac surgery. Patients were further stratified into groups by institutional aortic volume: low (<12 cases/year), medium (12–39 cases/year), and high (40+ cases/year) volume. Multivariable risk-adjusted analysis accounting for emergent status and aortic dissection among other factors was performed to determine the impact of institutional volume on mortality.

Results  Overall mortality was 12% in the reoperative population. When the redo cohort was divided into tertiles, high-volume group had a 5% operative mortality compared with 9 and 15% for the medium- and low-volume groups, respectively. Multivariable analysis revealed that patients operated on at low- (odds ratio [OR] = 5.0, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.6–9.6, p  < 0.001) and medium-volume centers (OR = 2.1, 95% CI: 1.1–4.2, p  = 0.03) had higher odds of mortality when compared with patients operated on at high-volume centers.

Conclusions  High-volume aortic centers can significantly reduce mortality for reoperative aortic surgery, compared with lower volume institutions.

Aortic valve endocarditis complicated by proximal false aneurysm

Background

Aortic valve endocarditis remains a life-threatening condition, especially in cases of periannular complications. Aorto-ventricular discontinuity associated with proximal false aneurysm represents a severe picture caused by extensive tissue disruption and is usually associated with prosthetic valve infection. Complex surgical repair is required in these cases and continues to be associated with high mortality and morbidity rates.

Methods

We retrieved information for 32 patients undergoing operation for infective aortic valve/prosthetic valve endocarditis complicated by pseudoaneurysm arising from aorto-ventricular discontinuity. Patients were relatively young, mostly male and most of them had a prior cardiac operation. Aortic root replacement with valve graft conduit was performed in all cases; it was associated with other procedures in seven patients: CABG (n=2), MV surgery (n=3), MV surgery + CABG (n=1) and pulmonary valve replacement (n=1). We reported and analysed patient outcomes at early and mid-term follow-up.

Results

Pre-discharge mortality was 22% (n=7). The postoperative course was complicated in 24 (75%) cases. Eighteen patients (56%) sustained low cardiac output resulting in multiple organ failure syndrome and death in five cases. One patient (3%) experienced a major neurologic deficit with a permanent cerebral stroke. Acute kidney injury complicated the course in 12 cases (37%), continuous renal replacement therapy was necessary in four patients (12%). Overall survival and freedom from endocarditis and reoperation at 5-year was 59% and 89%, respectively.

Conclusions

Patients with complicated aortic valve endocarditis presented generally in a poor preoperative state. Surgical treatment poses a non-negligible risk of postoperative mortality and morbidity but provides an acceptable survival rate and a satisfactory recovery at mid-term.

Early and long-term outcomes for patients undergoing reoperative aortic root replacement

OBJECTIVES

There are limited data on aortic root replacement (ARR) in patients with previous cardiac surgery. We analysed short-term and long-term results for patients with ARR after previous cardiac surgery.

METHODS

From September 1995 to April 2015, 130 patients underwent reoperative ARR. Fifty patients had undergone ARR previously (Group I), and 80 had been treated by isolated aortic valve repair or replacement (Group II). The primary indications for surgery were active endocarditis in 65 patients (50%), aneurysmatic root dilatation in another 37 (28.5%) and valve failure in 27 (20.8%).

RESULTS

Overall hospital mortality was 10% (n = 13). Survival at 10 and 15 years was 59.4% and 40.6%, respectively. Survival at 10 and 15 years was 71.5% and 62.5% in Group I and 56.2% and 35.4% in Group II, respectively (P = 0.14). Survival was significantly worse in patients operated for active endocarditis (23.7% vs 56.4% at 15 years; P < 0.001). Inferior 15-year survival was also observed for patients requiring concomitant surgery for cardiac comorbidities (10.5% vs 48.7%; P = 0.003) and in the elderly (≥60 years; 26.8% vs 59.5%; P < 0.001). Ten-year survival was best in patients after valve-preserving root replacement (100%). Multivariable analysis revealed age, active endocarditis and concomitant surgery for cardiac comorbidities as risk factors for death.

CONCLUSIONS

ARR after previous cardiac surgery can be performed with reasonable short-term and long-term survival. It is inferior in patients with active endocarditis or cardiac comorbidities and in the elderly. In these scenarios, less invasive procedures may be considered where applicable.

Debranching of Supra-aortic Vessels via Femoral Artery Inflow for Late Ascending Aortic Rupture

A 56-year-old man with a history of Marfan's syndrome, total arch replacement, descending thoracic endovascular aortic repair, and twice redo sternotomy for pseudoaneurysm repair, presented with a pulsatile chest mass secondary to a contained rupture of the ascending aorta. The patient underwent supra-aortic debranching via the superficial femoral artery and ascending thoracic stent-graft placement under continuous transesophageal echocardiography. Completion angiography demonstrated successful exclusion of the contained rupture. Postoperatively, the patient was neurologically intact, the pulsatile mass resolved, and the bypass grafts remained patent. Chronic respiratory failure and multidrug-resistant pneumonia led to late mortality. This case demonstrates that hybrid repair is effective in the emergent setting of ascending aortic rupture. Debranching of the ascending arch using the superficial femoral artery as inflow is feasible and provides adequate cerebral perfusion despite the length of the bypass. The use of transesophageal echocardiography during stent-graft deployment allows precise device placement in the high-risk area of the ascending aorta proximal to the innominate artery.

Use Side Branch of the Aortic Graft to Facilitate Coronary Reconstruction During Complex Aortic Surgery

The interposition graft could be used for difficult coronary reconstruction during aortic root replacement. We introduced a new technique that utilizes side branch of an aortic graft to facilitate coronary reconstruction. The present study describes this technique and its outcomes. We retrospectively reviewed 234 patient charts of those who underwent aortic root replacement between January 2013 and November 2017. Within this group, 6 patients required coronary reconstruction with branches of aortic graft and were included in this study. All patients were reoperative cases, 3 of which were for acute type A aortic dissection. The mean cardiopulmonary and aortic cross clamp times were 317.2 ± 35.1 minutes and 153.3 ± 75.4 minutes, respectively. All patients survived to discharge with a median hospital stay of 20.5 days (interquartile range: 13.75-27.75). During a median follow-up of 221 days (interquartile range: 197.78-1208), no patients experienced major adverse cardiovascular events. Four patients underwent radiographic follow-up, which confirmed patent interposition grafts (5/5). The use of branches from the aortic graft for coronary reconstruction is feasible with satisfactory outcomes.

Salvage Coronary Artery Bypass Predicts Increased Mortality During Aortic Root Operation

BACKGROUND

Aortic root replacement (ROOT) has been an established therapy, yet the impact of adding coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) to ROOT (CABG-R) is unknown. The purpose of this research was to investigate the impact of CABG on the outcomes of ROOT.

METHODS

A retrospective review from 2004 to 2016 of patients undergoing nonemergent ROOT surgical procedure was performed. Cohorts were established based on the presence or absence of added CABG. A propensity-score weighted comparison of outcomes was then conducted.

RESULTS

A total of 867 patients met inclusion criteria and were analyzed (711 ROOT [72.0%], 156 CABG-R [18.0%]). CABG-R patients were older and had higher proportions of previous valve operation, hypertension, endocarditis, immunosuppressive therapy, renal insufficiency, and redo operation (all p < 0.01). Indications for CABG included anatomy (n = 48, 30.8%), coronary artery disease (80, 51.3%), and ventricular failure (28, 17.9%). The permanent stroke rate was not significantly increased with the addition of CABG-R (p = 0.06). Thirty-day mortality was 5.5% for the entire cohort but was substantially higher in patients who underwent concomitant CABG (3.4% ROOT, 15.4% CABG-R). Mortality rates were highest among patients with acute ventricular failure and CABG (28.8%) compared with patients who underwent CABG for coronary artery disease (6.3%) or patients for anatomy (22.9%; p = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

CABG-R results in increased postoperative morbidity or mortality compared with isolated ROOT. Outcomes, however, are influenced by the specific clinical indication. CABG for coronary artery disease was associated with similar outcomes compared with isolated ROOT. Patients undergoing unplanned CABG for acute ventricular failure had the worst outcomes, thus underscoring the importance of technical success during coronary reimplantation.