Reimplantation versus remodeling in valve-sparing surgery for aortic root aneurysms: a meta-analysis

Valve-Sparing Aortic Root Replacement State-of-the-Art Review, Part II: Surgical Techniques

Aortic valve disease is common, and valve-preserving operations are preferred whenever possible. Valve-sparing aortic root replacement (VSRR) has become an important tool for managing aortic root pathology in children and adults. The learning curve for this operation is challenging, but with increasing experience and technical modifications, early and late outcomes continue to improve. Durable long term results vary based on underlying anatomy, pathology, and patient selection, as well as surgeon expertise. Part II of this VSRR State-of-the-Art Review article provides technical pearls related to VSRR.

Long-term durability of valve-sparing root replacement in patients with and without connective tissue disease

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this study was to evaluate the long-term outcomes of valve-sparing root replacement in patients with connective tissue disease (CTD) and compare them with patients without CTD who underwent valve-sparing root replacement for root aneurysm.

METHODS

Of 487 patients, 380 (78%) did not have CTD and 107 (22%) had CTD; 97 (91%) with Marfan syndrome, 8 (7%) with Loeys-Dietz syndrome, and 2 (2%) with Vascular Ehlers-Danlos syndrome. Operative and long-term outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

The CTD group was younger (36 ± 14 years vs 53 ± 12 years; P < .001), had more women (41% vs 10%; P < .001) and had less hypertension (28% vs 78%; P < .001) and bicuspid aortic valve (8% vs 28%; P < .001). Other baseline characteristics did not differ between the groups. Overall operative mortality was nil (P = 1.000); the incidence of major postoperative complications was 1.2% (0.9% vs 1.3%; P = 1.000) and did not differ between groups. Residual mild aortic insufficiency (AI) was more frequent in the CTD group (9.3% vs 1.3%, P < .001) with no difference in moderate or greater AI. Ten-year survival was 97.3% (97.2% vs 97.4%; log-rank P = .801). Of the 15 patients with residual AI, 1 had none, 11 remained mild, 2 had moderate, and 1 had severe AI on follow-up. Ten-year freedom from moderate/severe AI was 89.6% (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.8-1.37; P = .750) and 10-year freedom from valve reoperation was 94.9% (hazard ratio, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.43-3.39; P = .717).

CONCLUSIONS

The operative outcomes as well as long-term durability of valve-sparing root replacement is excellent in patients with or without CTD. Valve function and durability are not influenced by CTD.

Aortic root rotation: morphological analysis of the aortic root with three-dimensional computed tomography

OBJECTIVES

The aortic root (AoR) rotation and its spatial morphology at the base of the heart were postulated but not described in every detail. AoR rotation modalities may play an important role in decision-making during AoR surgery and its outcome. The aim was to provide a detailed spatial anatomy of the AoR rotation and its relation to the vital surrounding structure.

METHODS

The AoR rotation and its relation to the surrounding structure were assessed in 104 patients with tricuspid aortic valve. The interatrial septum was chosen as a reference to describe AoR rotation that marked the midline of the heart base as a landmark for the AoR rotation direction. Intermediate, clockwise and counterclockwise AoR rotations were defined based on the mentioned reference structures.

RESULTS

The AoR rotation was successfully assessed in 104 patients undergoing ascending aorta and or AoR intervention by multidetector row computed tomography. AoR was positioned normally in 53.8% of cases (n = 56) and rotated counterclockwise in 5.8% (n = 6) and clockwise in 40.4% (n = 42) of cases. In clockwise AoR rotation, the right coronary sinus was positioned in proximity to the right atrium and of the tricuspid valve, whereas in a counterclockwise rotation, the noncoronary sinus was placed over the tricuspid valve just over the membranous septum.

CONCLUSIONS

The AoR's rotation can be diagnosed using multidetector row computed tomography. Understanding the anatomy of the aortic valve related to rotational position helps guide surgical decision-making in performing AoR reconstruction.

Midterm Clinical Outcomes of Reimplantation Versus Remodeling Valve-Sparing Aortic Root Replacement in Patients With Connective Tissue Disorders: A Meta-Analysis

This meta-analysis aimed to compare the midterm clinical outcomes of reimplantation versus remodeling techniques for valve-sparing aortic root replacement (VSARR) in patients with connective tissue disorders (CTDs). Studies were screened and identified after the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines from the PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase databases. Forest plots were produced using Review Manager 5.3 (Cochrane, UK). Studies comparing early and midterm clinical outcomes of reimplantation versus remodeling VSARR in patients with CTD with a mean age ≥18 years were included. The sensitivity analysis excluded studies and subgroups of patients that received ring or suture annuloplasty in addition to remodeling surgery. The study selection identified 9 eligible studies. After analysis of the study period and location for patient crossover, 7 retrospective studies consisting of 597 patients (301 reimplantation and 296 remodeling) were pooled. The pooling revealed no significant difference in postoperative mortality (estimated mean follow-up of 10.5 years) (odds ratio [OR] 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.30 to 1.48, I2 = 30%, p = 0.32), reoperation (OR 0.35, CI 0.04 to 3.30, I2 = 81%, p = 0.36), or occurrence of postoperative aortic regurgitation of ≥2 (OR 0.56, CI 0.31 to 1.02, I2 = 47%, p = 0.06). The sensitivity analysis excluding annuloplasty demonstrated improved mortality (OR 0.19, CI 0.06 to 0.64, I2 = 0%, p = 0.007) and decreased aortic regurgitation of ≥2 (OR 0.23, CI 0.10 to 0.53, I2 = 47%, p = 0.0005) in reimplantation VSARR. The rates of reoperation remained insignificant in the sensitivity analysis (OR 0.43, CI 0.05 to 3.53, I2 = 71%, p = 0.43). In conclusion, this meta-analysis has demonstrated no significant difference in the midterm clinical outcomes of reimplantation versus remodeling techniques of VSARR. The sensitivity analysis excluding studies and patient subgroups that received remodeling and annuloplasty suggests remodeling alone to be inferior to reimplantation in patients with CTDs. Further research is required to assess remodeling and annuloplasty against reimplantation in patients of this demographic because the current body of knowledge does not allow sufficient analysis.

Outcomes of valve-sparing aortic root replacement in patients with bicuspid aortic valve and tricuspid aortic valve: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Valve-sparing aortic root replacement (VSARR) is a safe and effective surgical procedure to treat aortic root aneurysm. This meta-analysis aimed to investigate how this procedure might differ in patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) and tricuspid aortic valve (TAV).

DESIGN

Meta-analysis with meta-regression and systematic review.

SETTING

Systematic search in the following databases: PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase.

INTERVENTIONS

All observational studies of VSARR in patients with BAV or TAV were included in our study. Studies were included without any restrictions on language or publication date. A trial sequential analysis and a post-hoc meta-regression was performed on the main outcomes.

RESULT

Eleven articles met the inclusion criteria. A total of 1138 patients in BAV group, and 2125 patients in TAV group. No significant differences in gender and age were observed between BAV and TAV patients. BAV and TAV patients showed no differences in in-hospital mortality rate [0.00% vs. 1.93%; RR (95% CI) 0.33 (0.09, 1.26), I² = 0%, P = 0.11] and the rate of in-hospital reoperation [5.64% vs. 5.99%; RR (95% CI) 1.01(0.59, 1.73), I² = 33%, P = 0.98]. The overall long-term mortality rate of BAV patients was better than that of TAV patients [1.63% vs. 8.15%; RR (95% CI) 0.34 (0.13, 0.86), I² = 0%, P = 0.02]. During the follow-up observation period, patients in TAV group showed small but no statistic advantage in 3-year, 5-year, and over 10-year incidences of reintervention. Regarding the secondary endpoints, the two groups showed similar aortic cross-clamping time and total cardiopulmonary bypass time.

CONCLUSION

The VSARR techniques yielded similar clinical outcomes in both BAV and TAV patients. Although patients with BAV might have a higher incidence of reinterventions after initial VSARR, it is still a safe and effective approach to treat aortic root dilation with or without aortic valve insufficiency. TAV patients showed small but no statistic advantage in long-term (over 10 years) reintervention rate, which means, patients with BAV may face a higher risk of reintervention in the clinic.

Current controversies in aortic valve-preserving surgery

The clinical outcome of severe aortic regurgitation (AR) remains suboptimal, but surgery has been shown to have survival benefit over medical therapy. Postoperative survival is inferior in patients with reduced left ventricular function, and therefore early surgical intervention is recommended. Aortic valvuloplasty (AVP) is an attractive option to avoid the major drawbacks of prosthetic valves but has not been widely adopted. The etiology of AR is classified functionally into three groups: normal leaflet motion (type I), cusp prolapse (type II), and restriction (type III). Type I with dilatation of the sinus of Valsalva (type Ib) can be repaired by aortic valve reimplantation or aortic root remodeling with similar valve stability. Type I with dilatation of the aortic annulus (type Ic) can be managed by annuloplasty. Type II can be corrected by plication or resuspension techniques. Pericardial patch is necessary in AVP for type Id (perforation/fenestration) and type III but is associated with risk of recurrence. Bicuspid aortic valve is classified according to commissure angle: symmetrical, asymmetrical, and very asymmetrical. Tricuspidization is recommended for repair of very asymmetrical valves to avoid postoperative stenosis. Recent progress has achieved similar reoperation rates between bicuspid and tricuspid aortic valve repair. For Marfan syndrome, valve-sparing root replacement is advantageous compared to Bentall operation regarding late survival, thromboembolic and hemorrhagic events, and endocarditis. Similar findings have been reported in acute aortic dissection. Both remodeling and reimplantation procedures provide similar favorable outcomes in these settings. Recent advances in AVP are summarized by quantitative assessment of cusp configuration (effective height and geometric height), graft size decision, use of template to cut the graft, and videoscopic assessment of post-repair cusp configuration. Due to these advances, AVP shows superior results to replacement surgery. Further concrete evidence with larger case volumes and longer observation periods are necessary to popularize AVP.

Conventional aortic root vs valve-sparing root replacement surgery in aortic dilatation syndromes: a comparison of mortality and postoperative complications

INTRODUCTION

Conventional aortic root and valve-sparing root replacement surgery are two current surgical treatments for aortic dilatation syndromes. This review article aims to review the current literature surrounding these two established techniques.

AREAS COVERED

This review article will address the current indications for valve-sparing root replacement surgery, technical considerations in surgical planning and a comparison of clinical outcomes between these two surgical techniques.

EXPERT OPINION

Valve-sparing root replacement surgery is a safe and established treatment for aortic syndromes. Valve-sparing surgery procedure avoids the inherent risk of prosthetic valve dysfunction and prosthesis infection by preserving the native aortic valve compared to conventional aortic root surgery. This has been demonstrated in various observational studies and should be considered in clinically and anatomically appropriate patients. Other technical considerations, such as reimplantation versus remodeling technique and aortic cusp repair in select patients, may impact in short-term procedural and long-term clinical success with valve-sparing surgery.

Valve-sparing aortic root replacement: a primer for cardiologists

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this article is to review the contemporary evidence supporting valve-sparing aortic root replacement as the best option for patients with aortic root aneurysms and preservable aortic valves as well as to review the technical variations and modern adjuncts of these operations that impact both short and long-term durability.

RECENT FINDINGS

In patients with an aortic root aneurysm, with or without aortic valve regurgitation, valve-sparing aortic root replacement provide excellent clinical outcomes and stable valve function over several decades. Successful execution of this operation depends on careful patient selection and a thorough understanding of the anatomical and physiological relationships between the various components of the aortic root. Echocardiography remains the mainstay of imaging to determine the feasibility of valve-sparing root replacement.

SUMMARY

Valve-sparing aortic root replacement is an excellent alternative to composite valve graft replacement in nonelderly patients with aortic root aneurysms. Dedicated aortic root surgeons perform several technical variations of valve-sparing procedures aimed at matching the specific aortic root disorder with the optimal operation.