Surgery of the aortic root: should we go for the valve-sparing root reconstruction or the composite graft-valve replacement is still the first choice of treatment for these patients?

Treatment options for isolated aortic valve insufficiency: a review

Aortic insufficiency (AI) is a valvular disease with increasing prevalence in older patients. The modern era provides numerous options for the management of AI which is explored here. Traditional interventions included aortic valve replacement with either mechanical or bioprosthetic aortic valves. While the former is known for its durability, it has grown out of favor due to the potential complications of anticoagulation. The preference for bioprosthetic valves is thus on the rise, especially with the advancements of transcatheter technology and the use of valve-in-valve therapy. Surgical options are also no longer limited to replacement but include complex techniques such as those required for aortic valve repair, Ozaki neocuspidization, Ross procedure and valve-sparring aortic root repair. Transcatheter options for the management of AI are not commercially available currently; however, preliminary data from ad-hoc trials, showed promising results and potential use of transcatheter technology in a variety of patients with pure AI.

Cabrol procedure and its modifications: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The Cabrol procedure has undergone various modifications and developments since its invention. However, there is a notable gap in the literature regarding meta-analyses assessing it.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness and long-term outcomes of the Cabrol procedure and its modifications. Pooling was conducted using random effects model. Outcome events were reported as linearized occurrence rates (percentage per patient-year) with 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

A total of 14 studies involving 833 patients (mean age: 50.8 years; 68.0% male) were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled all-cause early mortality was 9.0% (66 patients), and the combined rate of reoperation due to bleeding was 4.9% (17 patients). During the average 4.4-year follow-up (3,727.3 patient-years), the annual occurrence rates (linearized) for complications were as follows: 3.63% (2.79-4.73) for late mortality, 0.64% (0.35-1.16) for aortic root reoperation, 0.57% (0.25-1.31) for hemorrhage events, 0.66% (0.16-2.74) for thromboembolism, 0.60% (0.29-1.26) for endocarditis, 2.32% (1.04-5.16) for major valve-related adverse events, and 0.58% (0.34-1.00) for Cabrol-related coronary graft complications.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review provides evidence that the outcomes of the Cabrol procedure and its modifications are acceptable in terms of mortality, reoperation, anticoagulation, and valve-related complications, especially in Cabrol-related coronary graft complications. Notably, the majority of Cabrol procedures were performed in reoperations and complex cases. Furthermore, the design and anastomosis of the Dacron interposition graft for coronary reimplantation, considering natural anatomy and physiological hemodynamics, may promise future advancements in this field.

Influence of Bentall Procedure on Left Ventricular Function

Objective

To evaluate the influence of Bentall procedure on left ventricular function and condition on long-term follow-up.

Methods

Seventy-three consecutive patients who underwent an aortic root and ascending aorta replacement with composite valve button Bentall or flanged Bentall technique, from January 2007 to November 2018, were included in this retrospective study.

Results

Postoperative left ventricular ejection fraction significantly increased (52.14±11.38 vs. 56.79±11.36; P=0.041), left ventricular end-systolic diameter significantly reduced (38.25±9.31 mm vs. 34.17±9.15 mm; P=0.027), left ventricular end-diastolic diameter significantly reduced (56.42±9.72 mm vs. 51.58±9.03 mm; P=0.01), and left atrial diameter significantly reduced (45.33±12.77 mm vs. 39.25±12.41 mm; P=0.01), compared to preoperative values. Our long-term survival results are comparable with previous studies in which survival rates in 5 years and 10 years were 83.5% and 69.8%, respectively. In comparing patients according to their New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class, it was shown that their postoperative functional capacity was improved during the follow-up period (2.1±0.56 vs. 1.2±0.42; P=0.001).

Conclusion

The Bentall procedure significantly improved the left ventricular systolic function and condition and decreased the left ventricular end-systolic and end-diastolic diameters and the left atrial diameter on long-term follow-up, based on the transthoracic echocardiography. Bentall procedure can be performed with acceptable mortality and morbidity rates on long-term follow-up.

Short-term results of flanged Bentall de Bono and valve-sparing David V procedures for the treatment of aortic root aneurysms

Aim

Even though the Bentall de Bono procedure is widely used for the treatment of aortic root aneurysms, the procedure is under scrutiny nowadays because of complications due to mechanical prosthetic valves and the need for life-long anticoagulation. Due to these complications, aortic valvesparing operations are being researched. In this study we compared the short-term morbidity and mortality rates of both Bentall de Bono and valve-sparing David V procedures.

Methods

We retrospectively evaluated data from 70 patients who had undergone surgery for aortic root aneurysm between April 2009 and June 2013. We had performed the Bentall de Bono procedure on 46 patients and the David V procedure on 24 patients. Mortality rates, cardpulmonary bypass (CPB) and aortic cross-clamp durations, postoperative arrhythmias, and prolonged intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital stays were compared in this study.

Results

There was no statistical difference for mortality rate (p = 0.57), while the CPB time and cross-clamp duration were shorter in the Bentall group. When we compared the length of ICU and hospital stay, we observed that the David group stayed longer in ICU (p = 0.003) but the duration of hospital stay was shorter (p = 0.007).

Conclusion

Despite Bentall de Bono being the most commonly used procedure, the short-, mid- and long-term results of both procedures were similar. Spared native aortic valve and lack of anticoagulation usage are notable advantages of the David V procedure.

Does aortic valve repair in valve-sparing aortic root reconstruction compromise the longevity of the procedure?

OBJECTIVES:

The effect of performing aortic valve repair in combination with valve-sparing operation on the length of time for which patients are free from reoperation is unclear. The objective of this study was to determine if the performance of aortic valve repair during valve-sparing operation modified the freedom from reoperation time.

METHODS:

From January 2003 to July 2014, 78 patients with a mean age of 49±15 years underwent valve-sparing operation. Sixty-eight percent of these patients were male. Twenty-two (28%) aortic valve repair procedures were performed in this patient population. In the aortic valve repair + valve-sparing operation group, 77.3% of patients had moderate/severe aortic insufficiency, while in the valve-sparing operation group, 58.6% of patients had moderate/severe aortic insufficiency (ns = not significant). Additionally, 13.6% of patients in the aortic valve repair + valve-sparing operation group had functional class III/IV, while 14.2% of patients in the valve-sparing operation group had functional class III/IV (ns).

RESULTS:

The in-hospital and late mortality rates, for the aortic valve repair + valve-sparing operation and valve-sparing operation groups were similar, as they were 4.5% and 3.6%; and 0% and 1.8%, respectively. In the aortic valve repair + valve-sparing operation group, 0% of patients presented moderate/severe aortic insufficiency during late follow-up, while in the valve-sparing operation group, 14.2% of patients presented with moderate/severe aortic insufficiency during this period (ns). In the aortic valve repair + valve-sparing operation group, 5.3% of patients presented with functional class III/IV, while in the valve-sparing operation group, 4.2% of patients presented with functional class III/IV (ns). In the aortic valve repair + valve-sparing operation group, 0% of patients required reoperation, while in the valve-sparing operation group, 3.6% of patients required reoperation over a mean follow-up period of 1621±1156 days (75 patients).

CONCLUSION:

Valve-sparing operation is a safe and long-lasting procedure and performance of aortic valve repair when necessary does not increase risk of reoperation on the aortic valve.