Midterm Results of David V Valve-Sparing Aortic Root Replacement in Acute Type A Aortic Dissection

Valve-sparing aortic root replacement versus composite valve graft with bioprosthesis in patients under age 50

BACKGROUND

Although the unique risks of implanting a prosthetic valve after aortic valve (AV) surgery in young patients are well established, studies of aortic root replacement (ARR) are lacking. We investigated long-term outcomes after valve-sparing root replacement (VSRR) versus the use of a composite valve graft with bioprosthesis (b-CVG) in patients age <50 years.

METHODS

A total of 543 patients age <50 years underwent VSRR (n = 335) or b-CVG (n = 208) between 2004 and 2021 from 2 aortic centers, excluding those with dissection or endocarditis. Endpoints included mortality over time, reoperative aortic valve replacement (AVR), and development of greater than moderate aortic insufficiency (AI) or aortic stenosis (AS). Fine and Gray competing risk regression was used to compare the risk of reintervention. Propensity score matching (PSM) balanced patient comorbidities, and landmark analysis isolated outcomes beginning 4 years postoperatively.

RESULTS

Compared with VSRR, b-CVG was associated with lower 12-year survival (88.6% vs 92.9%; P = .036) and a higher rate of AV reintervention (37.6% vs 12.0%; P = .018). After PSM, survival was similar in the 2 arms (93.4% for b-CVG vs 93.0% for VSRR; P = .72). However, both Fine and Gray multivariable risk regression and PSM showed that b-CVG was independently associated with AV reintervention at >4 years postoperatively (Fine and Gray: subdistribution hazard ratio, 4.3 [95% confidence interval, 1.8-10.2; P = .001]; PSM: 35.7% for b-CVG versus 14.3% for VSRR; P = .024]). PSM rates of greater than moderate AI/AS at 10 years were more than 2-fold greater in the b-CVG arm compared with the VSRR arm (37.1% vs 15.9%; P = .571).

CONCLUSIONS

b-CVG in young patients is associated with early valvular degeneration, with increasing rates of reoperative AVR occurring even within 10 years. In contrast, VSRR is durable with excellent survival. In eligible young patients, every effort should be made to retain the native AV.

Long-term Results of Valve-Sparing Aortic Root Replacement in Acute Type A Aortic Dissection

BACKGROUND

Valve preservation in acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) can be accomplished with root repair or replacement. Long-term valve durability with root repair has been established, but limited data exist regarding long-term durability of valve-sparing root replacement (VSRR). In this study, long-term results of VSRR were compared with root repair in ATAAD.

METHODS

From 2005 to 2023, 866 patients underwent ATAAD repair, of which 675 underwent root repair and 191 underwent root replacement (VSRR, n = 65; Bentall, n =126). VSRR patients were compared with 123 patients who underwent valve resuspension and root repair with postoperative echocardiograms ≥1 year.

RESULTS

VSRR patients were younger (VSRR, 44 ± 11 years vs root repair, 55 ± 13 years; P < .001). Preoperatively, 57% of VSRR and 35% of root repair patients had moderate or more aortic insufficiency. Cardiopulmonary bypass and myocardial ischemia times were significantly longer in VSRR (P < .001). Postoperative echocardiograms with ≥1 year follow-up were analyzed in 58 VSRR patients with median follow-up of 4.8 years (interquartile range, 3-12 years) and in 123 root repair patients with median follow-up of 3.6 years (interquartile range, 3-8 years). At 10 years, VSRR patients had superior freedom from more than mild aortic insufficiency (VSRR, 91% vs root repair, 49%; P < .001). At 10 years, freedom from aortic valve replacement was equivalent (VSRR, 98% vs root repair, 92%; P = .269).

CONCLUSIONS

VSRR provides equivalent long-term valve durability as root repair in ATAAD, even in patients with moderate or severe aortic insufficiency. In select young patients who require root replacement during ATAAD repair, VSRR represents an ideal therapy.

Valve-sparing root replacement versus composite valve graft root replacement: Analysis of more than 1500 patients from 2 aortic centers

OBJECTIVES

The long-term outcomes comparing valve-sparing root replacement, composite valve graft with bioprosthesis, and mechanical prosthesis have yet to be explored. We investigated the long-term survival and reintervention rates after 1 of 3 major aortic root replacements in patients with tricuspid aortic valves and patients with bicuspid aortic valves.

METHODS

A total of 1507 patients underwent valve-sparing root replacement (n = 700), composite valve graft with bioprosthesis (n = 703), or composite valve graft with mechanical prosthesis (n = 104) between 2004 and 2021 in 2 aortic centers, excluding those with dissection, endocarditis, stenosis, or prior aortic valve surgery. End points included mortality over time and cumulative incidence of aortic valve/proximal aorta reintervention. Multivariable Cox regression compared adjusted 12-year survival. Fine and Gray competing risk regression compared the risk and cumulative incidence of reintervention. Propensity score-matched subgroup analysis balanced the 2 major groups (composite valve graft with bioprosthesis and valve-sparing root replacement), and landmark analysis isolated outcomes beginning 4 years postoperatively.

RESULTS

On multivariable analysis, both composite valve graft with bioprosthesis (hazard ratio, 1.91, P = .001) and composite valve graft with mechanical prosthesis (hazard ratio, 2.62, P = .005) showed increased 12-year mortality risk versus valve-sparing root replacement. After propensity score matching, valve-sparing root replacement displayed improved 12-year survival versus composite valve graft with bioprosthesis (87.9% vs 78.8%, P = .033). Adjusted 12-year reintervention risk in patients receiving composite valve graft with bioprosthesis or composite valve graft with mechanical prosthesis versus valve-sparing root replacement was similar (composite valve graft with bioprosthesis subdistribution hazard ratio, 1.49, P = .170) (composite valve graft with mechanical prosthesis subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.28, P = .110), with a cumulative incidence of 7% in valve-sparing root replacement, 17% in composite valve graft with bioprosthesis, and 2% in composite valve graft with mechanical prosthesis (P = .420). Landmark analysis at 4 years showed an increased incidence of late reintervention in composite valve graft with bioprosthesis versus valve-sparing root replacement (P = .008).

CONCLUSIONS

Valve-sparing root replacement, composite valve graft with mechanical prosthesis, and composite valve graft with bioprosthesis demonstrated excellent 12-year survival, with valve-sparing root replacement associated with better survival. All 3 groups have low incidence of reintervention, with valve-sparing root replacement showing decreased late postoperative need for reintervention compared with composite valve graft with bioprosthesis.

Incidence, risk factors, and long-term outcomes associated with permanent pacemaker implantation after aortic root replacement

OBJECTIVE

Permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) after aortic valve replacement is associated with long-term mortality. However, data regarding PPI after aortic root replacement (ARR) is lacking. Herein we describe the incidence, risk factors, and long-term outcomes of PPI after ARR.

METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing ARR from 2005 to 2020 were selected after excluding those with endocarditis, type A dissection, or preoperative PPI. Patients requiring PPI after ARR were identified, along with the indication and timing. Independent factors associated with PPI after ARR were identified and long-term survival was assessed.

RESULTS

The incidence of PPI was 3.8% (n = 85) among 2240 patients undergoing ARR. PPI was performed a median of 7 days (interquartile range, 5-12 days) after ARR most commonly for complete heart block (73%). Bicuspid aortic valve (odds ratio [OR], 1.89; P = .02), female sex (OR, 1.74; P = .04), preoperative heart block (OR, 2.70; P = .02), and prior aortic valve replacement (OR, 2.18; P = .01) were independently associated with PPI while preoperative aortic insufficiency (OR, 0.52; P = .01) and valve-sparing root replacement procedure compared with bio-Bentall (OR, 0.40; P = .01) were protective. Patients requiring PPI after ARR were not at increased risk of operative or long-term mortality compared with patients not requiring PPI (P = .26); however, those undergoing PPI experienced significantly longer hospital length of stay (13 vs 7 days; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of PPI after ARR remains low, particularly after VSRR. Preoperative conduction disturbance, prior AVR, and bicuspid aortic valve are all associated with increased risk of PPI. Although PPI is associated with longer length of stay, it is not associated with early or late mortality.

Reintervention after valve-sparing aortic root replacement: A comprehensive analysis of 781 David V procedures

OBJECTIVE

Studies of reintervention after valve-sparing aortic root replacement (VSRR) are limited by sample size and failure to evaluate all types of reinterventions, including distal aorta and transcatheter interventions. In this report, reintervention after VSRR using a large patient cohort was comprehensively analyzed.

METHODS

In a series involving 2 academic aortic centers, 781 consecutive patients from 2005 to 2020 undergoing David V VSRR for aortic aneurysm (91%) or dissection (9%) were included. Median age was 50 years, and 23% had a bicuspid aortic valve (AV). Median follow-up was 7.0 years. Open or transcatheter reintervention on the AV, proximal, or distal thoracic aorta was identified. Cumulative incidence was calculated, and subdistribution hazard models identified factors associated with reintervention. Time-dependent incidence of reintervention was plotted using risk-hazard functions.

RESULTS

Sixty-eight reinterventions (57 open, 11 transcatheter) were performed. Reinterventions were divided by indication into degenerative AV (n = 26, including 1 transcatheter aortic valve replacement), endocarditis (n = 11), proximal aorta (n = 8), and distal aorta (n = 23, including 10 thoracic endovascular aortic repairs). Risk of reintervention for endocarditis peaked 1 to 3 years after VSRR, whereas other indications had stable, low rates of occurrence throughout the follow-up period. The cumulative incidence of reintervention was 12.5% whereas the cumulative incidence of AV reintervention was 7.0% at 10 years and was associated with residual postoperative aortic insufficiency. In-hospital mortality after reintervention was 3%.

CONCLUSIONS

Reintervention rates after VSRR are relatively low in long-term follow-up and can be performed with acceptable operative risk. The majority of reinterventions are performed for indications other than AV degeneration, with the timing of reintervention varying by the specific clinical indication.

Acute type A aortic syndromes: outcomes are independent of aortic root/valve management

Purpose

Clinical outcomes following various surgical intervention strategies for aortic root and valve pathology during repair of acute type A aortic syndromes were studied and compared.

Methods

From 2004 to 2019, 634 patients underwent acute type A aortic repair. Patients were divided into 4 groups: Valve Resuspension (n = 456), Isolated Valve Replacement (AVR) (n = 24), Valve and Root Replacement (ROOT) (n = 97), and Valve Sparing Root Replacement (VSRR) (n = 57). The primary endpoint was midterm survival and multivariable risk factor analysis was performed.

Results

The mean age was 55.4 ± 13 years, 424 (67%) were male, and overall early mortality was 12%. Early mortality was 13%, 8%, 11%, and 7% for the Valve Resuspension, AVR, ROOT, and VSRR groups respectively, p = 0.43. Five-year survival was 74%, 86%, 73%, and 84% for the Valve Resuspension, AVR, ROOT, and VSRR groups respectively, p = 0.46. There was no difference in late stroke, renal failure, heart block, and late bleeding (p > 0.05 for all). At late follow-up, AVR and ROOT patients had a higher mean gradient versus Valve Resuspension and VSRR patients, p < 0.0001. For the total cohort, risk factors for late mortality included preoperative peripheral vascular disease (hazard ratio (HR) 2.3, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.2-4.4, p = 0.009) and preoperative dialysis (HR 2.8, 95% CI 1.3-6.1, p = 0.01).

Conclusion

Mid-term survival following repair of acute type A aortic dissection is not independently associated with a specific type of aortic valve intervention. Native valve preservation leads to acceptable mid-term valve hemodynamics and should be the preferred therapy in this emergent clinical setting.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12055-023-01602-8.

Bentall versus valve-sparing aortic root replacement for root pathology with moderate-to-severe aortic insufficiency: a propensity-matched analysis

OBJECTIVES

To examine short- and long-term outcomes of patients with moderate-to-severe aortic insufficiency (AI) undergoing either a Bentall aortic root replacement (ARR) or valve-sparing root replacement (VSRR).

METHODS

A two-centre retrospective database of patients undergoing ARR from 2004 to 2021 was reviewed. Patients <18 years old were excluded. A total of 1527 adult patients underwent Bentall ARR (n = 1150, 75%) or VSRR (n = 377, 25%). Propensity score matching based on preoperative comorbidities was used and 195 matched pairs were identified. Perioperative outcomes, reoperation rates, recurrence of AI and long-term survival were evaluated.

RESULTS

ARR patients had more concomitant ascending aortic replacement (35% vs 20%, P = 0.002) and shorter cardiopulmonary bypass (189 vs 233 min, P < 0.0001) and aortic cross-clamp (170 vs 204 min, P < 0.0001) times than the VSRR group. Postoperatively, outcomes were similar between groups, including stroke (3% vs 2%) and in-hospital mortality (1.5% vs 2.1%), all P > 0.05. Indications for and rates of reoperation (4% vs 5%, P = 0.62) of the aortic valve and proximal aorta were similar between ARR and VSRR groups with reoperations occurring a mean of 3.2 years after initial root replacement. The ARR group had less moderate-to-severe AI than the VSRR group (1.6% vs 14%, P = 0.002) a mean of 3 years after surgery. Ten-year survival was similar between ARR (84%) and VSRR (82%) (P = 0.69) groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Both ARR and VSRR can be performed with acceptable short- and long-term outcomes in patients with moderate-to-severe AI.

Long-term outcomes of valve-sparing root versus composite valve graft replacement for acute type A aortic dissection: Meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the long-term outcomes of valve-sparing aortic root replacement (VSARR) versus composite aortic valve graft replacement (CAVGR) in the treatment of acute type A aortic dissections (ATAAD).

METHODS

We performed a pooled meta-analysis of Kaplan-Meier-derived time-to-event data from studies with longer follow-up beyond the immediate postoperative period.

RESULTS

Seven studies met our eligibility criteria, comprising a total of 858 patients (367 patients in the VSARR groups and 491 patients in the CAVGR group). We found no statistically significant differences in the overall survival between the groups over time (HR 0.83, 95%CI 0.63-1.10, P = 0.192), but we observed a higher risk of reoperation in the VSARR group when compared with the CAVGR group (HR 9.99, 95% CI 2.23-44.73, P = 0.003). The meta-regression revealed statistically significant positive coefficients for age (P < 0.001) in the analysis of survival, which means that this covariate has a modulating effect on this outcome. The higher the mean age, the higher the HR for overall mortality was found to be with VSARR as compared with CAVGR. Other covariates such as female sex, hypertension, diabetes, connective tissue disorders, bicuspid aortic valve, hemiarch and/or total arch replacement, concomitant coronary bypass surgery did not seem to have any effect on the outcomes.

CONCLUSION

VSARR did not confer a better (or worse) survival over time in patients with ATAAD, but it was associated with higher risk of reoperations in the long run.

Reconstruction of aortic sinus using patches in patients with acute type A aortic dissection

OBJECTIVES

Acute type A aortic dissection involving the aortic sinus is often combined with varying degrees of aortic regurgitation, while the structure of the aortic valve is often undamaged. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical effects of reconstruction of the aortic sinus using patches in patients with acute type A aortic dissection.

METHODS

From January 2016 to December 2019, 52 patients with acute type A aortic dissection involving the aortic sinus were treated with aortic sinus reconstruction using pericardial or artificial vascular patches. The clinical and follow-up data were summarized.

RESULTS

Bovine pericardial patches were used in 31 cases and artificial vascular patches were used in 21 cases for aortic sinus reconstruction. Cardiopulmonary bypass time was (250.4 ± 65.7) min, aortic cross clamp time was (143.7 ± 42.3) min, and hypothermic circulatory arrest time was (9.6 ± 8.1) min. Three patients died in hospital, with a mortality rate of 5.8%. Fifteen patients (28.8%) had mild postoperative aortic regurgitation. The follow-up duration was 40 ± 12 (range, 21-66) months. Five patients (10.2%) developed moderate to severe aortic regurgitation and 3 (6.1%) died during the follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS

The application of patches for aortic sinus reconstruction is a relatively easy method in aortic valve-sparing root reconstruction for acute type A aortic dissection involving the aortic sinus. The clinical and follow-up results are favorable.

Case Report: Occurrence of Severe Thoracic Aortic Aneurysms (Involving the Ascending, Arch, and Descending Segments) as a Result of Fibulin-4 Deficiency: A Rare Pathology With Successful Management

Aortic diseases requiring surgery in childhood are distinctive and rare. Very few reports in the literature account for the occurrence of multiple thoracic aortic aneurysms in the same pediatric patient because of a genetic cause. We report a rare occurrence of severe thoracic aortic aneurysms (involving the ascending, arch and descending aortic segments) with severe aortic insufficiency in a 7-year-old female child secondary to the extremely rare and often lethal genetic disorder, cutis laxa. She was eventually identified as a carrier of a homozygous EFEMP2 (alias FBLN4) mutation. This gene encodes the extracellular matrix protein fibulin-4, and its mutation is associated with autosomal recessive cutis laxa type 1B that leads to severe aortopathy with aneurysm formation and vascular tortuosity. Parents of the child were not known to be consanguineous. Significant symptomatic improvement in the patient could be discerned after timely intervention with the valve-sparing aortic root replacement (David V procedure) and a concomitant aortic arch replacement. This is a unique report with a successful outcome that highlights the occurrence of a rare hereditary aortopathy associated with a high morbidity and mortality, and the importance of an early diagnosis and timely management. It also offers insight to physicians in having a very broad differential and multimodal approach in handling rare pediatric cardio-pathologies with a genetic predisposition.

A new patch technique for valve-sparing aortic root repair in acute type A aortic dissection

Valve-sparing aortic root replacement is an attractive option for younger patients with acute type A aortic dissection. This study aimed to design a new patch technique for reconstructing the aortic root and preserving the aortic valve following aortic dissection. Between July 2017 and December 2018, 35 patients underwent valve-sparing aortic root repair using this new patch technique. All participants were in the supine position, transesophageal echocardiography and median sternotomy were routinely performed. After thrombi at the aortic root were removed in acute type A dissection, the luminal aortic intimal dissection was removed until the aortic condition was normalized. In each aortic sinus involved in the dissection, a Dacron-graft patch with the shape corresponding to the defect was sutured to the normal remnant vascular wall or aortic annulus in the aortic sinus using 5-0 Prolene suture to reconstruct the aortic root. A total of 2 patients died, and 1 cerebral infarction, and 3 cases of transient brain dysfunction were recorded. The sinus tube junction and sinus diameter were within the normal ranges when they were reexamined 3 months after surgery. This new patch technique circumvents the redesign of the spatial 3D structure of the aortic valve, is simple to operate, and easy to master. It completely removes the diseased dissection tissue, avoids the use of glue, and is an alternative surgical technique, especially for beginners.

State of the Art Review: Surgical Treatment of Acute Type A Aortic Dissection

Acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) is a life-threatening event that requires immediate surgical treatment. Improvements in surgical treatment, graft technology, organ protection and imaging techniques have led to improved clinical outcomes. Individualized treatment concepts have emerged based on more advanced planning tools that allow for a tailored approach even in complex situations such as multi-level malperfusion. This review provides an overview of the current surgical treatment of ATAAD, focusing on new disease classifications, preoperative computed tomography angiography (CTA) assessment, new prosthesis and stent technologies, and organ-protection strategies.

Outcomes of Liu's aortic root repair and valve preservation in patients with type A dissection and aortic regurgitation

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate short- and medium-term outcomes following Liu's aortic root repair and valve preservation in patients with acute type A aortic dissection complicated by moderate-to-severe aortic regurgitation (AR).

METHODS

From October 2011 to July 2018, a total of 324 consecutive patients underwent emergency surgery for acute type A aortic dissection. There were 122 patients (38%) with moderate-to-severe AR, of whom 82 (67%) underwent Liu's aortic root repair and valve preservation. Aortic computed tomography angiography and echocardiography were performed at discharge, 6 and 12 months postoperatively, and annually thereafter. We focused on assessing the survival and aortic root and valve durability in the 82 patients.

RESULTS

The 30-day, 1-year, 3-year and 6-year survival estimates were 94%, 90%, 85% and 81%, respectively. At a median follow-up of 36.5 (interquartile range 24.9-50.9) months, all patients were free from reoperation. No residual false lumens in the aortic root, recurrent aortic root dissections or aortic root pseudoaneurysms were observed during the follow-up period. Only 1 patient (1%) presented with moderate AR at 6 months, which remained asymptomatic with no significant changes over a 3-year period. The remaining patients showed satisfactory valve function with an AR grade of mild (27%) or trace or none (72%). In the competing risk analysis, the incidence of recurrence of AR was 2% at 8 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Liu's aortic root repair and valve preservation is a safe and effective operative strategy that achieves favourable short- and medium-term outcomes for acute type A aortic dissection with moderate-to-severe AR.

Aortic Root Remodeling in Acute Aortic Dissection

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the long-term results of remodeling in acute aortic dissection type A (AADA) to define operative risk and root and valve stability.

METHODS

Between October 1995 and December 2018, a total of 352 patients were treated surgically for AADA. Of these, 90 patients with AADA (<2 weeks from onset; age: 57 ± 15 years; 70 males) with a root diameter of >43 to 45 mm (depending on patient size) (48 ± 4.1 mm) underwent aortic root remodeling and were analyzed further. As the control group, we chose the patients with normally sized aortic roots who had been treated by tubular replacement only (n = 227). Other procedures were performed in 35 cases.

RESULTS

Early mortality was 9% in the remodeling group versus 15% in the tubular ascending aortic replacement (TAR). Actuarial survival at 10 and 15 years was 68 ± 5% and 58.3 ± 6.4%, respectively, in the root remodeling group versus 68 ± 4% and 66 ± 4% in the TAR group (p = 0.99). Freedom from reoperation on the aortic valve or root was 95 ± 3% at 10 years and at 89 ± 6% at 15 years. Freedom from proximal reoperation after TAR at 10 and 15 years was 93 ± 3% and 91 ± 3% (n = 31 patients at risk), respectively, not statistically different from that after remodeling (p = 0.75).

CONCLUSIONS

The long-term stability of aortic root remodeling for enlarged roots with AADA was comparable to TAR preserving a normal aortic root.

Patch Neointima Technique in Acute Type A Aortic Dissection: Midterm Results of 147 Cases

BACKGROUND

The patch neointima technique is a modified valve-sparing aortic root repair surgery for acute type A aortic dissection and the short-term outcomes are satisfactory. The midterm outcomes have not been reported.

METHODS

From January 2009 to December 2012, 147 patients underwent valve-sparing aortic root repair with the patch neointima technique for type A aortic dissection in our center. The midterm outcomes of the patients were evaluated by echocardiography and aortic computed tomography angiography.

RESULTS

Of 147 patients, 32 patients (21.8%) underwent proximal arch repair, and 115 patients (78.2%) underwent proximal arch repair combined with triple-branched stent graft implantation. The perioperative mortality was 5.4%. Preoperative aortic insufficiency (AI) was observed in 94 patients (63.9%); 131 patients (89.1%) left the operating room with 0 AI; the remaining 16 patients (10.9%) had trace or less than 1+ AI. A total of 128 patients (87.1%) completed 7-year follow-up. The mean follow-up time was 5.7 ± 1.2 years. As many as 82% of patients (105) were 0 AI and 15.6% of patients (20) were 0.5+ trace or less than 1+ AI. No reoperation was performed for the aortic root. The diameters of sinotubular junction and sinus were reduced to the normal range (28.3 ± 4.2 mm and 30.5 ± 3.6 mm, respectively) and remained stable (28.9 ± 5.6 mm, P = .300, and 30.8 ± 4.2 mm, P = .540, respectively) during 7 years of follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Valve-sparing aortic root repair with patch neointima technique was associated with stable function of the aortic valves and no expansion of the aortic root in the midterm.

Long-term experience with valve-sparing root reimplantation surgery in tricuspid aortic valve

Objective

To analyze our long-term experience with valve-sparing reimplantation technique in treating aortic root aneurysm, aortic regurgitation, and aortic dissection in patients with tricuspid aortic valve.

Methods

Between March 1998 and October 2018, 303 consecutive patients underwent valve-sparing reimplantation in our institution. The mean age of this cohort was 52.9 ± 15 years. Time to event analysis was performed with the Kaplan-Meier method. Risk of death, reoperation, and aortic regurgitation (AR) recurrence were analyzed using the cox-regression method.

Results

In-hospital mortality was 1% (n = 3) of which two were admitted for acute aortic dissection. Median follow-up was 5.81 years ([IQR]: 2.8-10 years). Thirty-nine patients (14.4%) died during follow-up. At 5 and 10 years, overall survival was 92 ± 2%and 75 ± 4.9%, respectively. Seventeen patients required late aortic valve reoperation. Freedom from valve reoperation was 95 ± 2% and 90 ± 3%. Freedom from AR > 2+ and AR > 1+ at 10 years was 91 ± 4% and 71.5 ± 4.6%, respectively. Significant multivariate predictors of death included age, New York Heart Association dyspnea class (NYHA), type A acute dissection (TAAD), and preoperative left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD). Significant multivariate predictors of AR recurrence included indication for surgery, previous cardiac surgery, and presence of preoperative AR. Freedom from events like major bleeding, thromboembolic events, and infective endocarditis at 10 years were 97%, 98%, and 96%, respectively.

Conclusions

Aortic valve-sparing with the reimplantation technique has been performed for over two decades in our institution, and the results in patients with tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) are excellent in terms of survival and freedom from valve-related adverse outcomes including valve reoperation. These results continue supporting the use of valve sparing root replacement using the reimplantation technique (VSRR) in patients with aortic aneurysm, irrespective of whether they have preoperative AR or not. VSRR is safe, durable, and reproducible, but further follow-up, well into the second decade is still necessary.

Aortic root remodeling with external annuloplasty for acute type A aortic dissection: Midterm results

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the role of aortic root remodeling with external aortic annuloplasty (ARREAA) in acute type A aortic dissection (AAAD).

METHODS

From May 2011 to May 2020, 59 patients out of 240 with AAAD underwent ARREAA. Data were retrospectively collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

The mean age was 61.4 ± 8.6 years and 43 patients were males (73%). Hemiarch and total arch replacement were performed in 37 (62.7%) and 14 (23.7%) patients. An aortic valvuloplasty was performed in seven patients (11.8%). Five patients (8.5%) required coronary artery bypass graft. Re-exploration for bleeding was required in six patients (10.1%). The 30-day mortality rate was 18.6%. Preoperative hemodynamic instability (odds ratio [OR] = 8.57, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.57-46.71; p = 0.013), consciousness disorder (OR = 19.18, 95% CI = 3.02-121.72]; p = 0.002) or myocardial ischemia (OR = 6.28, 95% CI = 1.27-31.10; p = 0.013) were significantly associated with postoperative mortality. No patient was reoperated for aortic valve during the postoperative period. One patient suffered a stroke postoperatively with partial recovery. Kidney failure requiring temporary dialysis occurred in 12 patients (20.3%). At discharge, a transthoracic echocardiogram showed moderate aortic regurgitation (AR; grade 2) in two patients. During follow-up (mean = 58.4 ± 32.4 months), three patients died. The rate of mortality was 6.2%. Actuarial survival at 5 years was 76.3%. No patient required reoperation on the proximal aorta or aortic valve. At 4 years, freedom from any aortic valve or root reintervention and AR > 2 were both 100%.

CONCLUSION

In a center with expertise in valve-sparing procedures, ARREAA is a reasonable option in the surgical management of AAAD in selected patients. This technique stabilizes the aortic annulus and preserves root anatomy for durable outcomes.

Management of the aortic root in type A aortic dissection: A valve sparing approach

BACKGROUND

Type A acute aortic dissection (TAAAD) is rapidly fatal without emergency repair. Surgical outcomes have improved over the years with improvements in technique and postoperative care. Classically, supracomissural aortic replacement has been the standard of care. However, reintervention rates, particularly on the aortic root in certain groups of patients, shifted the focus towards improving long-term results of surgical repair. With regard to the aortic root, root replacement has been the gold standard. However, the surgical community realized that valve replacement in itself is a disease, and valve sparing aortic root replacement (VSRR) took center stage in the care of these patients.

METHODS

We searched the Pubmed and EMBASE databases for articles related to VSRR and composite valve conduit (CVC) root replacement, and the long-term results of these techniques in TAAAD.

RESULTS

Supracomissural repair is limited by reintervention, and CVC results are affected by complications related to the prosthetic valve. Conversely, VSRR is associated with good short-term outcomes, improvement in quality of life, and it is durable.

CONCLUSION

VSRR is a sound technique in TAAAD in experienced hands.

The fate of aortic root and aortic regurgitation after supracoronary ascending aortic replacement for acute type A aortic dissection

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate the fate of the preserved aortic root after supracoronary aortic replacement for acute type A aortic dissection.

METHODS

Between October 1999 and March 2018, 339 patients underwent supracoronary aortic replacement for acute type A aortic dissection at our institution. Late outcomes were evaluated, including overall survival, aortic-related death, and aortic root-related reoperation. The median follow-up was 3.7 years (1.4-8.4 years).

RESULTS

Operative mortality was 46 patients (13.6%). The cumulative incidences at 5 years for aortic root-related reoperation, aortic-related death, and non-aortic related death were 2.5%, 14.5% and 12.4%, respectively. Multivariable Cox hazard regression analysis demonstrated greater sinus of Valsalva diameter and number of commissural detachments to be significant risk factors for a composite outcome consisting of aortic-related death or aortic root-related reoperation. Mixed-effects regression demonstrated that sinus of Valsalva diameter significantly increased with time (P < .001), and aortic regurgitation significantly worsened (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Sinus of Valsalva diameter and commissural detachment were independent predictors of unfavorable outcomes after supracoronary aortic replacement. Close follow-up is particularly necessary for these patients, and aortic root replacement at the time of initial operation may lead to more favorable late outcomes.

The Florida Sleeve Procedure Is Durable and Improves Aortic Valve Function

Background  The Florida (FL) Sleeve procedure was introduced as a simplified approach for valve-sparing correction of functional Type I aortic insufficiency (AI) associated with aortic root aneurysms. In this study, short- and long-term outcomes after the FL Sleeve procedure were investigated.

Methods  From May 2002 to January 2016, 177 patients underwent the FL Sleeve procedure. Left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD), left ventricular end-systolic diameter, left ventricular ejection fraction, and degree of AI (none = 0, minimal = 1, mild = 2, moderate = 3, severe = 4) were evaluated by echocardiography.

Results  Mean ± standard deviation of age was 49.41 ± 15.37 years. Survival rate was 98% at 1 year, 97% at 5 years, and 93% at 8 years. Freedom from reoperation was 99% at 1 year and 98% at 2 to 8 years. Three patients (1.69%) died during hospitalization. Three patients (1.69%) developed periprocedural stroke. Postoperative follow-up echocardiography was available in 140 patients at 30 days, and 31 patients at 5 years. AI grade significantly improved from baseline at 30 days (2.18 ± 1.26 vs. 1.1 ± 0.93, p  < 0.001) and at 5 years (2.0 ± 1.23 vs. 1.45 ± 0.88, p  = 0.04). Preoperative mean LVEDD significantly decreased from 52.20 ± 6.73 to 46.87 ± 8.40 ( p  < 0.001) at 30 days, and from 53.22 ± 7.07 to 46.61 ± 10.51 ( p  = 0.01) at 5 years.

Conclusions  The FL Sleeve procedure is a safe, effective, and durable treatment of aortic root aneurysm and Type I AI. Long-term survival and freedom from reoperation rates are encouraging.

Valve-Sparing Aortic Root Replacement as First-Choice Strategy in Acute Type a Aortic Dissection

Background: Although, in theory, valve-sparing aortic root replacement (David procedure) is an ideal surgical option for acute aortic dissection type A (AADA) it is usually not regarded as the first-choice treatment due to the emergency setting and the relative complexity of the procedure. Here, we report the results of a consecutive, single-surgeon series of 45 AADA patients with the David procedure as first-choice treatment strategy. Methods and Results: Between September 2009 and July 2013 a total of 49 patients with AADA were consecutively operated by the same surgeon at our institution. The David procedure was the treatment of choice for the proximal aorta unless aortic valve pathology or critical preoperative patient status advocated against it. Median follow-up was 5.0 years (CI95%, 4.0-6.0). Out of the 45 patients included in this study the David procedure was performed in 28 patients (62.2%), while in 17 patients (37.8%) an alternative surgical strategy had to be pursued. Although X-clamping (168.5 ± 41.7 vs. 110.3 ± 51.1 min; p = 0.001), cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) (245.0 ± 62.4 vs. 211.8 ± 123 min; p = 0.029) and total operation time (383.8 ± 88.5 vs. 312.8 ± 144.8; p = 0.047) were significantly longer in the David-group as compared to the non-David group, there was no difference in major complication rate as well as 30-day (17.9 vs. 23.5%; p = 0.645) and 5-year mortality (28.6 vs. 35.3%) between groups. Conclusions: This small series indicates that the David procedure may be safe and feasible as a primary surgical treatment strategy for AADA.

Multimodal imaging of aortic annulus and root geometry after valve sparing root reconstruction

Background

Controversy exists regarding the optimal annular stabilization technique following valve sparing aortic root reconstruction (VSRR) with no comprehensive imaging data to evaluate the natural history of aortic root graft geometry, aortic valve competency and patient prognosis post-reconstruction.

Methods

Between 2008-2017, 70 consecutive patients (mean age 56.4±16.4 years, 19.7% females) underwent VSRR. All patients were prospectively evaluated annually with clinical follow-up, echocardiography and CT imaging. Patients were assessed for survival, freedom from reoperation, degree of regurgitation, New York Heart Association (NYHA) status and graft complications and followed up to nine years post-operatively (mean 36±21 months).

Results

The largest increase of the aortic annulus diameter observed during the surveillance period was 2.64%±5.4% which occurred between the second and third years of follow-up and the aortic sinuses, sinotubular junction and ascending aorta all remained relatively stable based on annual CT imaging. Echocardiographic data showed far more variability in measurements at each annual post-operative visit with far less precision compared to the CT measurements taken at the same time. Due to the large variability and greater standard deviations, no significant difference was detected between the more precise CT measurements and those from the echocardiogram images. The overall survival rate was 94.3% (66 patients) at one year. Freedom from reoperation was 98.6% (69 patients). Throughout the entire duration of follow-up, aortic insufficiency was identified as 0 in 46 (65.7%), 1+ in 19 (27.1%), 2+ in 4 (5.7%), 3+ in 0 (0%) and 4+ in 1 (1.4%). Mean NYHA status was 1.1±0.3 at most recent follow-up for all patients. CT evidence showed 97.0% (64 patients) freedom from graft complication including: endocarditis, thrombosis, embolism, aneurysm, pseudoaneurysm, dehiscence, dissection and kinking.

Conclusions

The annual imaging data presented here demonstrates stability of the Dacron aortic annuloplasty reconstruction over time, without the need for internal or external annular stabilization. CT imaging proved to be far more reliable than echocardiographic images, however given the stability, annual CT imaging is of little benefit. This is the first prospective study to compare echocardiographic, CT and clinical data following VSRR.

Short- and long-term outcomes of aortic root repair and replacement in patients undergoing acute type A aortic dissection repair: Twenty-year experience

OBJECTIVE

The study objective was to evaluate the perioperative and long-term outcomes of aortic root repair and aortic root replacement and provide evidence for root management in acute type A aortic dissection.

METHODS

From 1996 to 2017, 491 patients underwent aortic root repair (n = 307) or aortic root replacement (n = 184) (62% bioprosthesis) for acute type A aortic dissection. Indications for aortic root replacement were intimal tear at the aortic root, root measuring 4.5 cm or more, connective tissue disease, or unrepairable aortic valvulopathy. Primary outcomes were in-hospital mortality, long-term survival, and reoperation rate for root pathology.

RESULTS

Patients' median age was 61 years and 56 years in the aortic root repair group and aortic root replacement group, respectively. The aortic root replacement group had more renal failure requiring dialysis, previous cardiac intervention or surgery, heart failure, coronary malperfusion syndrome, acute myocardial infarction, and severe aortic insufficiency, as well as concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting, tricuspid valve repair, and longer cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic crossclamp times but similar arch procedures. Perioperative outcomes were similar in the aortic root repair and aortic root replacement groups, including in-hospital mortality (8.5% and 8.2%), new-onset renal failure requiring permanent dialysis, stroke, myocardial infarction, and sepsis. Kaplan-Meier 10-year survival was 62% and 65%, and the 15-year cumulative incidence of reoperation was 11% and 7% in the aortic root repair and aortic root replacement groups, respectively. The primary indication for root reoperation was aortic root aneurysm in the aortic root repair group and bioprosthetic valve deterioration in the aortic root replacement group.

CONCLUSIONS

Aortic root repair and aortic root replacement are appropriate surgical options for acute type A aortic dissection repair with favorable short- and long-term outcomes. Aortic root replacement should be performed for patients with acute type A aortic dissection presenting with an intimal tear at the aortic root, root aneurysm 4.5 cm or greater, connective tissue disease, or unrepairable aortic valvulopathy.

Durability and safety of David V valve-sparing root replacement in acute type A aortic dissection

BACKGROUND

Valve-sparing root replacement (VSRR) is an attractive option in type A aortic dissection (TAAD) repair for a young patient with normal cusp anatomy, but conventional root replacement using a composite valved-conduit (ROOT) remains the gold standard in this emergent clinical setting. We examine the long-term safety and durability of the David V VSRR compared with ROOT in TAAD repair.

METHODS

From March 2004 to April 2017, 136 patients underwent repair of acute TAAD using either ROOT (n = 77; 56.6%) or VSRR (n = 59; 43.4%). Annual echocardiograms were performed for follow-up in VSRR patients. Univariable regression, Kaplan-Meier, and competing risk analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Preoperative characteristics were similar between groups, except that VSRR patients were younger (mean age 43.5 ± 11.4 years VSRR vs 50.4 ± 3.0 years ROOT; P = .001). Both groups had similar rates of preoperative malperfusion or shock (29.3% VSRR vs 37.0% ROOT; P = .35) and ≥3+ aortic insufficiency (63% VSRR vs 76.8% ROOT). Thirty-day mortality in the VSRR group was 2/59 (3.4%) and 11/77 in the ROOT group (14.3%; P < .001). All-cause survival at 9 years was 92% (VSRR) and 59% (ROOT; P = .002). The incidence of aortic reintervention was similar between groups (20%-23% at 5 years; P = .81). At 9 years of follow-up, 5/52 (9.6%) VSRR patients had ≥2+ aortic insufficiency, and 1 patient required valve reintervention.

CONCLUSIONS

In highly-selected patients, the David V VSRR provides a safe repair of acute TAAD with concomitant root pathology and valve insufficiency. In our center, the incidence of valve-related reintervention at long-term follow-up is low after emergent repair.

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.

Short-term outcomes of a simple and effective approach to aortic root and arch repair in acute type A aortic dissection

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate short-term outcomes following direct aortic root and arch repair in patients with acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) without technical adjuncts.

METHODS

Between 2012 and 2016, 94 consecutive patients with ATAAD underwent surgical repair, including aortic root repair (n = 45), root replacement (n = 39), or no root procedure (n = 10). Aortic root repair was achieved by running approximation of the dissected aortic wall circumferentially at the sinotubular junction and reinforcing the coronary ostia with 5-0 Prolene. The aortic root and arch were anastomosed to the Dacron graft with 5-0 Prolene without Teflon felt or biological glue.

RESULTS

Postoperative new-onset myocardial infarction, stroke, renal failure, and complete heart block occurred in 0%, 4%, 13%, and 0% of patients, respectively, whereas 30-day mortality was 4%. The incidences of permanent neurologic deficit and renal failure were 1% and 2%, respectively. Up to 5 years, the aortic root repair group was free from residual or recurrent aortic root dissection, major change in the aortic root diameter, and moderate to severe aortic regurgitation; the entire cohort was free of anastomotic pseudoaneurysm and reoperation for proximal aortic pathology or significant change in diameter of the aortic arch and descending thoracic aorta. Overall survival was 85% at 4 years and was significantly enhanced in the aortic root repair group compared with the Bentall group (n = 24) (93% vs 57%; P = .035).

CONCLUSIONS

Direct aortic root and arch repair with approximation of the aortic wall without use of technical adjuncts is safe and effective for patients with ATAAD. If warranted, preservation of the native aortic valve should be considered for a potential survival benefit.

Limited root repair in acute type A aortic dissection is safe but results in increased risk of reoperation

OBJECTIVE

Management of the aortic root is a challenge for surgeons treating acute type A aortic dissection.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of the acute type A aortic dissection experience at Stanford Hospital between 2005 and 2015 and identified patients who underwent either limited root repair or aortic root replacement. Differences in baseline characteristics were balanced with inverse probability weighting to estimate the average treatment effect on the controls. Weighted logistic regression was used to evaluate in-hospital mortality. Weighted Cox proportional hazards regression was used to evaluate differences in the hazard for mid-term death. Reoperation was evaluated with death as a competing risk with the Fine-Gray subdistribution hazard.

RESULTS

After we excluded patients managed either nonoperatively or with definitive endovascular repair, there were 293 patients without connective tissue disease who underwent either limited root repair or aortic root replacement. There was no difference in weighted perioperative mortality, odds ratio 0.89 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44-1.76, P = .7), and there was no difference in weighted survival, hazard ratio 1.12 (95% CI, 0.54-2.31, P = .8). Risk of reoperation was greater in limited root repair (11.8%, 95% CI, 0.0%-23.8%) than for root replacement (0%), P < .001.

CONCLUSIONS

Limited root repair was associated with increased risk of late reoperation after repair of acute type A aortic dissection. Surgeons with adequate experience may consider aortic root replacement in well-selected patients. However, given good outcomes after limited root repair, surgeons should not feel compelled to perform this more-complex operation.

Surgery for Diseases of the Aortic Root

The aortic root is the junction between the heart and aorta, containing the aortic valve and the coronary artery ostia. Various pathologic conditions arise in this region requiring complex surgical correction. These include aneurysmal dilatation with and without aortic regurgitation, acute aortic dissection extending below the sinotubular junction, and infective endocarditis with valve and periannular destruction. Multiple strategies for correction of these complex surgical issues exist, with excellent early results and long-term survival.

Risk Factors for Late Aortic Valve Dysfunction After the David V Valve-Sparing Root Replacement

BACKGROUND

Valve-sparing root replacement (VSRR) is an established therapy for aortic root pathology. However, late aortic valve dysfunction requiring reoperation remains a primary concern of this procedure. This study examines risk factors for late aortic insufficiency (AI) and aortic stenosis (AS) after David V VSRR.

METHODS

A retrospective review from 2005 to 2015 at a US academic center identified 282 patients who underwent VSRR. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to identify risk factors for late AI and AS after VSRR.

RESULTS

The mean age was 46.4 years. Sixty-four patients (22.7%) had bicuspid valves, and 41 patients (14.5%) had Marfan syndrome. The incidence of reoperations was 27 (9.6%), and 42 cases (14.9%) presented with acute type A dissection. Operative mortality was 8 (2.8%). Seven-year survival was 90.9%. Seven-year cumulative incidence of reoperation, greater than 2+ AI and greater than moderate AS were 3.1%, 2.2%, and 0.8%, respectively. Multivariable analysis showed aortic root size 55 mm or larger (hazard ratio 3.44, 95% confidence interval: 1.27 to 9.29, p = 0.01) to be a risk factor for late AI whereas bicuspid valve (hazard ratio 16.07, 95% confidence interval: 3.12 to 82.68, p = 0.001) and cusp repair were found to be risk factors (hazard ratio 5.91, 95% confidence interval: 1.17 to 29.86, p = 0.03) for late AS.

CONCLUSIONS

Valve-sparing root replacement can be performed with low operative risk and good overall long-term survival even in complex clinical settings. Durable valve function can be expected; however, aortic root size 55 cm or more, bicuspid valve anatomy, and cusp repair represent independent risk factors for late aortic valve dysfunction after these procedures.

Twenty-five year outcomes following composite graft aortic root replacement

BACKGROUND

Operative choices for aortic root disease include traditional root replacement with a composite valved graft as well as various valve-sparing and root repair procedures.

OBJECTIVES

To report our experience with traditional composite graft aortic root replacement by a single surgeon over a 25-year period in 449 patients, focusing on long-term survival and freedom from late reoperation and adverse events.

METHODS

The coronary button technique was used in all patients. Mean age was 56.1 ± 14.0 years (range 14-87) with 83% males (373/449). Valve prosthesis was mechanical in 343 (76%) and bioprosthetic in 106 (24%). A modified Cabrol procedure (Dacron coronary graft) was employed in 10% (45/449) and concomitant coronary artery bypass graft in 10.9% (49/449). There were 15.8% (71/449) urgent/emergent and 8.2% (37/449) redo procedures. Survival follow-up was 100%. Mean follow-up was 7.0 ± 5.1 years (range 0.1-24.8).

RESULTS

Operative mortality occurred in 14 patients (3.1%) and was 2.2% (9/418) in non-dissection and 1.9% (7/361) in elective first-time operations. Stroke and re-exploration for bleeding occurred in nine (2.0%) and 20 (4.5%) patients, respectively. Major late events included bleeding in 2.5% (11/435) and thromboembolism in 1.1% (5/435). At 5, 10, and 20 years, freedom from major events and reoperations on the root were 97.8, 95.4, and 94.39%, and 99.0, 99.0, and 97.9%, respectively. Survival in patients aged <60 years was 92.0, 90.1, and 79.8% at five, 10, and 20 years versus 88.4, 67.9, and 42.6% in patients aged ≥60 years (p = 0.001). Compared with age- and gender-matched controls, survival was not significantly different (p = 0.20).

CONCLUSIONS

Composite graft aortic root replacement is associated with low operative risk, excellent long-term survival, and low incidence of reoperation and late events.

Clinical Outcomes of the David V Valve-Sparing Root Replacement Compared With Bioprosthetic Valve-Conduits for Aortic Root Aneurysms

BACKGROUND

Valve-sparing root replacement (VSRR) is an established therapy for aortic root pathology. Limited insight exists when the results of VSRR are compared with those of conventional root replacement with use of a bioprosthetic composite conduit (BIO). This study compares the operative and midterm results of VSRR and BIO.

METHODS

A retrospective review from 2002 to 2015 at a United States academic center identified 282 patients who underwent VSRR and 425 patients who underwent BIO. Propensity-score matching was performed based on 20 preoperative characteristics, and 123 matched pairs were identified.

RESULTS

The mean age (VSRR 53.5 ± 11.1, BIO 53.0 ± 13.0; p = 0.74) and left ventricular ejection fraction (VSRR 54.5 ± 9.2%, BIO 54.4 ± 9.4%; p = 0.99) were equivalent in both groups. The incidence of bicuspid valves (VSRR 26.0%, BIO 27.6%; p = 0.77), Marfan syndrome (VSRR 6.5%, BIO 4.9%; p = 0.58), type A dissection (VSRR 13.0%, BIO 13.0%; p = 0.99), reoperation (VSRR 15.4%, BIO 20.3%; p = 0.32) and arch replacement (VSRR 60.2%, BIO 63.4%; p = 0.60) were similar between the groups. Operative mortality was 5.7% in VSRR and 0.8% in BIO (p = 0.07). There were no significant differences in postoperative renal failure (VSRR 0.8%, BIO 0.0%; p = 0.99) or stroke (VSRR 3.3%, BIO 0.8%; p = 0.37) between the groups. The 7-year survival (VSSR 82.4%, BIO 83.0%; p = 0.53), 7-year freedom from reoperation (VSRR 97.4%, BIO 95.8%; p = 0.48), and 7-year freedom from greater than moderate aortic insufficiency (AI) (VSRR 98.1%, BIO 100.0%; p = 0.47) were similar between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

VSRR and BIO result in equivalent operative mortality and morbidity with similar midterm survival and valve durability. VSRR is an effective alternative to BIO for aortic root pathologic conditions; however, careful patient selection is paramount.