The aortic valve–sparing operation

Mechanical Versus Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients Undergoing Bentall Procedure

BACKGROUND

The widely used Bentall procedure is the criterion standard treatment for aortic root pathology. Studies comparing the long-term outcomes of bioprosthetic and mechanical valves in patients undergoing the Bentall procedure are limited.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients who underwent the Bentall procedure with a bioprosthetic or mechanical valve between 2001 and 2018 were identified from Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database. The primary outcome of interest was all-cause mortality. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was performed to compare the 2 prosthetic types. In total, 1052 patients who underwent the Bentall procedure were identified. Among these patients, 351 (33.4%) and 701 (66.6%) chose bioprosthetic and mechanical valves, respectively. After inverse probability of treatment weighting, no significant differences in the in-hospital mortality (odds ratio, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.77-1.19]; P=0.716) and all-cause mortality (34.1% vs. 38.1%; hazard ratio, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.78-1.04]; P=0.154) were observed between the groups. The benefits of relative mortality associated with mechanical valves were apparent in younger patients and persisted until ≈50 years of age.

CONCLUSIONS

No differences in survival benefits were observed between the valves in patients who underwent the Bentall procedure. Additionally, bioprosthetic valves may be a reasonable choice for patients aged >50 years when receiving the Bentall procedure in this valve-in-valve era.

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.

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.

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 surgery in Marfan syndrome

Marfan syndrome (MFS) is an autosomal dominant connective disease etiologically related with FBN-1 gene mutation. The altered microfibril protein structure result in characteristic cardiovascular abnormalities including aortic root dilatation, aortic root aneurysms, and aortic dissections. Aortic root aneurysms and subsequent dissection are the major causes of reduced life expectancy in MFS patients. Prophylactic aortic root replacement has improved the survival of patients with MFS. Elective root replacement carries very low mortality and morbidity. Emergency root replacement for dissection is accompanied with higher early mortality and late deaths/interventions. Both the techniques of aortic root replacement, total root replacement (TRR) with a prosthetic valved conduit, and valve-sparing root replacement (VSRR) yield excellent early and late results. Considering the low risk of prosthetic valve-related events, the improved long-term survival, and event-free survival, TRR continues to be a very effective surgical option. VSSR also seems to be a good option for the first 10 to 15 years following surgery in MFS patients. The choice of procedure depends upon available expertise, patients' choice, feasibility of anticoagulation, possibility of pregnancy, and lifestyle of the patient. Aortic root morphology and state of valve cusps also affect the decision making. In recent times, personalized external aortic root support (PEARS) with a macroporous mesh sleeve has also emerged as a promising alternative to aortic root replacement. All these patients need close monitoring for whole life after surgical intervention.

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.

Developing a shared decision support framework for aortic root surgery in Marfan syndrome

OBJECTIVE

The study is an early phase of development of a decision support framework for people with Marfan syndrome who are anticipating prophylactic aortic root surgery. Implications of the timing and the nature of the operation chosen were previously elicited in focus groups. In this step, we explored the range of relative values placed by individuals on the implications of decisions made about surgery.

METHODS

Following the principles of the Ottawa Decision Support Framework, eight questions in the general form 'How important is it to you …' were framed by a panel. Marfan people, families and specialist doctors answered online. Quantitative and qualitative analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Worldwide, 142 responses were received including 25 specialist doctors. Respondents were 55% female and 46% had previous aortic root surgery. Overall, active lifestyle was more important to males (p=0.03). Patients placed more importance than doctors on not deferring surgery (p=0.04) and on avoidance of anticoagulation in the interests of childbearing (p=0.009). Qualitative analysis showed differing but cogently reasoned values that were sometimes polarised, and mainly driven by the wish to maintain a good quality of life and active lifestyle.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the cogency of these viewpoints, people anticipating root replacement surgery should have ample opportunity to express them and to have them acknowledged ahead of a consultation when they can then be fully explored in a mutually informed forum. If they differ from local medical practice, they can then be discussed in the process of reaching shared and individualised decisions.

Republished review: Surgical management of aortic root disease in Marfan syndrome and other congenital disorders associated with aortic root aneurysms

Elective root replacement in Marfan syndrome has improved life expectancy in affected patients. Three forms of surgery are now available: total root replacement (TRR) with a valved conduit, valve sparing root replacement (VSRR) and personalised external aortic root support (PEARS) with a macroporous mesh sleeve. TRR can be performed irrespective of aortic dimensions and a mechanical replacement valve is a secure and near certain means of correcting aortic valve regurgitation but has thromboembolic and bleeding risks. VSRR offers freedom from anticoagulation and attendant risks of bleeding but reoperation for aortic regurgitation runs at 1.3% per annum. A prospective multi-institutional study has found this to be an underestimate of the true rate of valve-related adverse events. PEARS conserves the aortic root anatomy and optimises the chance of maintaining valve function but average follow-up is under 5 years and so the long-term results are yet to be determined. Patients are on average in their 30s and so the cumulative lifetime need for reoperation, and of any valve-related complications, are consequently substantial. With lowering surgical risk of prophylactic root replacement, the threshold for intervention has reduced progressively over 30 years to 4.5 cm and so an increasing number of patients who are not destined to have a dissection are now having root replacement. In evaluation of these three forms of surgery, the number needed to treat to prevent dissection and the balance of net benefit and harm in future patients must be considered.

Surgical management of aortic root disease in Marfan syndrome and other congenital disorders associated with aortic root aneurysms

Elective root replacement in Marfan syndrome has improved life expectancy in affected patients. Three forms of surgery are now available: total root replacement (TRR) with a valved conduit, valve sparing root replacement (VSRR) and personalised external aortic root support (PEARS) with a macroporous mesh sleeve. TRR can be performed irrespective of aortic dimensions and a mechanical replacement valve is a secure and near certain means of correcting aortic valve regurgitation but has thromboembolic and bleeding risks. VSRR offers freedom from anticoagulation and attendant risks of bleeding but reoperation for aortic regurgitation runs at 1.3% per annum. A prospective multi-institutional study has found this to be an underestimate of the true rate of valve-related adverse events. PEARS conserves the aortic root anatomy and optimises the chance of maintaining valve function but average follow-up is under 5 years and so the long-term results are yet to be determined. Patients are on average in their 30s and so the cumulative lifetime need for reoperation, and of any valve-related complications, are consequently substantial. With lowering surgical risk of prophylactic root replacement, the threshold for intervention has reduced progressively over 30 years to 4.5 cm and so an increasing number of patients who are not destined to have a dissection are now having root replacement. In evaluation of these three forms of surgery, the number needed to treat to prevent dissection and the balance of net benefit and harm in future patients must be considered.

Expanding the indications for the David V aortic root replacement: early results

OBJECTIVE

To examine the early results of the David V valve-sparing aortic root replacement procedure in expanded, higher risk clinical scenarios with appropriately selected patients.

METHODS

From 2005 to 2011, 150 David V valve-sparing aortic root replacements were performed within Emory Healthcare. A total of 78 patients (expanded group) had undergone the David V in expanded, difficult clinical settings such as emergent type A dissection (n = 29), grade 3+ or greater aortic insufficiency (AI) (n = 53), or reoperative cardiac surgery (n = 14). These patients were evaluated and compared with a group of 72 patients (traditional group) with less than grade 3+ AI who underwent a David V in a traditional, elective setting. The mean follow-up was 19 months (range, 1-72), and the follow-up data were 88% complete.

RESULTS

There were 3 operative deaths (2.2%), all occurring in the expanded group. The overall patient survival at 6 years was 95%. Three patients required aortic valve replacement: two for severe AI and one for fungal endocarditis. Both groups had concomitant cusp repairs performed in conjunction with the David V (traditional, n = 10; and expanded, n = 16; P = .27). At follow-up, freedom from moderate AI was 93%, and the freedom from aortic valve replacement was 98%. No significant difference was observed in the freedom from moderate AI between the expanded and traditional groups (91% vs 95%, respectively; P = .16).

CONCLUSIONS

In selected patients possessing appropriate aortic cusp anatomy, the David V can be safely and effectively performed for the expanded indications of aortic dissection, severe AI, and reoperative cardiac surgery with low operative risk. Valve function has remained excellent in the short term, providing evidence of durability and a low rate of valve-related complications.