Impact of aortic valve disease on outcomes of aortic root replacement

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.

Valve Sparing vs Composite Valve Graft Root Replacement: Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

Both valve-sparing root replacement and composite valve graft (CVG) are acceptable options in aortic root replacement. We compare outcomes of these 2 approaches and durability of the aortic valve.

METHODS

A consecutive 1635 patients without acute dissection underwent primary aortic root replacement from 1997 to 2022; 473 (29%) underwent valve-sparing root replacement, and 1162 (71%) received CVG. Propensity score matching was used to reduce baseline differences.

RESULTS

The CVG group was older (59 ± 14 years vs 49 ± 14 years; P < .001) with more comorbidities, such as hypertension (88.4% vs 66.4%; P < .001), diabetes (7% vs 1.7%; P < .001), ischemic heart disease (5.1% vs 1.3%; P = .001), pulmonary disease (6.6% vs 1.3%; P < .001), renal impairment (8.6% vs 1.3%; P < .001), class III-IV heart failure (35% vs 9.2%; P < .001), bicuspid aortic valves (44.8% vs 24.1%; P < .001), and severe aortic insufficiency (50.2% vs 13.2%; P < .001). Operative mortality was 0.4% (0% in valve sparing); incidence of major postoperative complications was 2.9% (3.6% vs 1.1%; P = .009). Ten-year survival was 93.1% (91.2% vs 97.7%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.7; 95% CI, 0.9-3.3; P = .120). Mean follow-up was 65 ± 60 months; aortic valve reoperations were similar (5.8% vs 5.7%; HR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.4-1.4; P = .401). Recurrent moderate-severe aortic insufficiency was less prevalent in CVG (6.1% vs 11.1%; HR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.07-0.27; P < .001). Propensity score matching identified 225 pairs. There was no difference in 10-year survival or reoperations. Recurrent moderate-severe aortic insufficiency was higher with valve sparing.

CONCLUSIONS

Both valve-sparing operations and CVG provide excellent early and late outcomes out to 10 years. Valve sparing is associated with a higher risk for development of aortic insufficiency but no difference in reoperations.