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

Surgical management of the aortic root in acute type A aortic dissection: A comparative analysis

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to assess the early- and mid-term outcomes of aortic root repair and replacement, and to provide evidence to improve root management in acute type A aortic dissection (AAAD).

METHODS

This study enrolled 455 patients who underwent AAAD root repair (n = 307) or replacement (n = 148) between January 2016 and December 2017. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) method was used to control for treatment selection bias. The primary outcomes were in-hospital mortality, mid-term survival, and proximal aortic reintervention.

RESULTS

The success rate of root repair was 99.7%. The in-hospital mortality in the conservative root repair (CRR) and aggressive root replacement (ARR) were 8.1% and 10.8%. The median follow-up time was 67.76 months (IQR, 67-72 months). After adjusting for baseline factors, there was no significant differences in mid-term survival (p = .750) or the proximal aortic reintervention rate (p = .550) between the two groups. According to Cox analysis, age, hypertension, severe aortic regurgitation, CPB time, and concomitant CABG were all factors associated with mid-term mortality. Regarding reintervention, multivariate analysis identified renal insufficiency, bicuspid aortic valve, root diameter ≥ 45 mm, and severe aortic regurgitation as risk factors, while CRR did not increase the risk of reintervention. The subgroup analysis revealed heterogeneity in the effects of surgical treatment across diverse populations based on a variety of risk factors.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with AAAD, both CRR and ARR are appropriate operations with promising early and mid-term outcomes. The effects of treatment show heterogeneity across diverse populations based on various risk factors.

Aortic Valve-Sparing Operations

Aortic valve-sparing operations were developed >3 decades ago and have become part of the surgical armamentarium to treat patients with aortic root and ascending aortic aneurysms. Although remodeling of the aortic root is physiologically sounder than reimplantation of the aortic valve, most surgeons seem to prefer the latter. This review summarizes the views of one of the pioneers of aortic valve-sparing operation and includes their development, the various modifications that occurred over the years, comparative outcomes with aortic root replacement with valved conduits, outcomes from several recently reported series, and the future directions. The author argues that comparisons between aortic valve-sparing operations and aortic root replacement with valved conduits based on retrospective studies are inappropriate because these 2 types of surgery are performed in patients with different aortic valve pathology. Late outcomes after aortic valve-sparing operations have not been consistent among various reports and raise the question of surgical expertise and patients' selection. Aortic valve-sparing operations are the best treatment for young patients with aortic root aneurysm and normal aortic cusps. Further studies are needed to define their role in the management of patients with diseased aortic cusps.