Repair of asymptomatic aortic valve disease during other cardiac surgery

Aortic valve replacement for patients with mild to moderate aortic stenosis undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery

Aortic valve replacement (AVR) is not normally recommended in asymptomatic patients, even if aortic stenosis is severe. However, as the population ages, an increasing number of patients with mild or moderate aortic stenosis will require coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). In these cases, risk of "prophylactic" AVR needs to be weighed against risks of subsequent worsening of the mildly or moderately diseased aortic valve. If unoperated, aortic stenosis will worsen at an average of 6-8 mmHg per year (-0.1 cm2/year valve area), and one-quarter of such patients will require late AVR with a high operative mortality (14-24%). If AVR is performed at the time of CABG, operative risk is increased only slightly (from 1-3% to 2-6%), as are late mortality (1-2% per year) and morbidity (1-2% per year), mainly from hemorrhagic complications. Intrinsic gradients of most prosthetic valves are sufficiently low that even patients with low aortic valve gradients are likely to derive hemodynamic benefit from AVR. Thus, if there is a measurable (>20-25 mmHg) gradient across the aortic valve in a patient who requires CABG, the patient is at considerable risk for developing symptomatic aortic stenosis prior to reaching the end of expected benefit from CABG; in this case AVR should be considered. It may be reasonable in patients with very mild gradients (<25 mmHg) to defer aortic valve surgery; however, it should be noted that aortic stenosis progression is generally more rapid when the initial gradient is small.

Repair of nonsevere rheumatic aortic valve disease during other valvular procedures: is it safe?

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the long-term performance of aortic valve repair, we analyzed the results obtained in a 22-year period in patients who underwent repair of nonsevere rheumatic aortic valve disease during other valvular procedures.

METHODS

Fifty-three patients (mean 40 +/- 11.6 years of age) with predominant rheumatic mitral valve disease had concomitant aortic valve disease in association with serious tricuspid valve disease in 25 of them. Preoperatively, aortic valve disease was considered moderate in 47.2% of the patients and mild in 52.8%. All patients underwent reparative techniques of the aortic valve (free edge unrolling, 44; subcommissural annuloplasty, 40; commissurotomy, 36) at the time of mitral or mitrotricuspid valve surgery. The completeness of follow-up during the closing interval was 100%, with a mean follow-up of 18.8 years (range 8 to 22.5 years).

RESULTS

Hospital mortality rate was 7.5%. Of 49 surviving patients, 26 (53.1%) died during late follow-up. The actuarial survival curve including hospital mortality was 35.4% +/- 8.7% at 22 years. For patients who underwent mitral and aortic valve surgery, the actuarial survival curve at 22 years was 32.3% +/- 13%, whereas for patients who had a triple-valve operation the survival was 37.0% +/- 10.1% (p = 0.07). Twenty-five patients underwent an aortic prosthetic valve replacement. Actuarial free from aortic structural deterioration and valve-related complications at 22 years was 25.3% +/- 9.3% and 12.7% +/- 4.8%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term functional results of reparative procedures of nonsevere aortic valve disease in patients with predominant rheumatic mitral valve disease have been inadequate at 22 years of follow-up. According to these data, conservative operations for rheumatic aortic valve disease do not seem appropriate.