Outcomes of reoperative aortic root surgery

Transcatheter valve-in-valve interventions after aortic root replacement: A systematic review

Structural valve deterioration after aortic root replacement (ARR) surgery may be treated by transcatheter valve-in-valve (ViV-TAVI) intervention. However, several technical challenges and outcomes are not well described. The aim of the present review was to analyze the outcomes of ViV-TAVI in deteriorated ARR. This review included studies reporting any form of transcatheter valvular intervention in patients with a previous ARR. All forms of ARR were considered, as long as the entire root was replaced. Pubmed, ScienceDirect, SciELO, DOAJ, and Cochrane library databases were searched until September 2023. Overall, 86 patients were included from 31 articles that met our inclusion criteria out of 741 potentially eligible studies. In the entire population, the mean time from ARR to reintervention was 11.0 years (range: 0.33-22). The most frequently performed techniques/grafts for ARR was homograft (67.4%) and the main indication for intervention was aortic regurgitation (69.7%). Twenty-three articles reported no postoperative complications. Six (7.0%) patients required permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) after the ViV-TAVI procedure, and 4 (4.7%) patients had a second ViV-TAVI implant. There were three device migrations (3.5%) and 1 stroke (1.2%). Patients with previous ARR present a high surgical risk. ViV-TAVI can be considered in selected patients, despite unique technical challenges that need to be carefully addressed according to the characteristics of the previous surgery and on computed tomography analysis.

Preservation versus replacement of the aortic root for acute type A aortic dissection

OBJECTIVE

To determine the impact of aortic root preservation versus aortic root replacement (ARR) after acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) repair.

METHODS

In this observational study of consecutive aortic surgeries between 2007 and 2021, patients with ATAAD were identified via a prospectively maintained institutional database and were stratified by root preservation versus ARR (including valve-sparing and complete ARR). Kaplan-Meier survival estimation and multivariable Cox regression analysis were performed.

RESULTS

Among the 601 patients underwent aortic arch reconstruction for ATAAD, 370 (61.6%) underwent root preservation and the other 231 (38.4%) underwent ARR, with a median follow-up of 6.3 years (interquartile range, 3.8-9.6 years). Cardiopulmonary bypass and ischemic times were longer in the ARR group, but intraoperative variables were otherwise similar between the groups, including cannulation strategy and extent of distal repair. There were no between-group differences in postoperative outcomes, including operative mortality, stroke, mechanical ventilation time, renal failure, reexploration for bleeding, and total length of stay. At a 1-year follow-up, the incidence of aortic regurgitation (moderate or greater) was similar in the 2 groups. On multivariable Cox regression, ARR was not associated with improved long-term survival compared with root preservation (hazard ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval, 0.82-1.56; P = .44). Late reinterventions on the aortic root or valve were similar in the 2 groups and was 2.0% for the overall cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that aortic root preservation may achieve similar midterm outcomes as ARR after ATAAD repair.

The Clinical Significance of Unplanned Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Aortic Root Replacement

OBJECTIVES

Unexpected coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is occasionally required during aortic root replacement (ARR). However, the impact of unplanned CABG remains unknown.

DESIGN

A single-center, retrospective observational study.

SETTING

At university-affiliated tertiary hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

All patients who underwent ARR from 2011 through 2022.

INTERVENTIONS

Aortic root replacement with or without unplanned CABG.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

A total of 795 patients underwent ARR. Among them, 131 (16.5%) underwent planned concomitant CABG, and 34 (4.3%) required unplanned CABG. The most common indication of unplanned CABG was ventricular dysfunction (33.3%), followed by disease pathology (25.6%), anatomy (15.4%), and surgical complications (10.3%). A vein graft to the right coronary artery was the most commonly performed bypass. Infective endocarditis and aortic dissection were observed in 27.8% and 12.8%, respectively. Prior cardiac surgery was seen in 40.3%. The median follow-up period was 4.3 years. Unplanned CABG was not associated with operative mortality (odds ratio [OR] 1.54, 95% CI 0.33-7.16, p = 0.58) or long-term mortality (hazard ratio 0.91, 95% CI 0.44-1.89, p = 0.81). Body surface area smaller than 1.7 was independently associated with an increased risk of unplanned CABG (OR 4.51, 95% CI 1.85-11.0, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Unplanned CABG occurred in 4.3% of patients during ARR, but was not associated with operative mortality or long-term mortality. A small body surface area was a factor associated with unplanned CABG.

True redo-aortic root replacement versus root replacement after any previous surgery

Objective

The impact of previous aortic root replacement (True-Redo) versus any previous operation (Any-Redo) on outcomes after reoperative aortic root replacement (redo-ROOT) is largely unknown. In this first multi-institutional study, the clinical impact True-Redo versus Any-Redo in the setting of redo-ROOT was reviewed.

Methods

From 2004 to 2021, 822 patients underwent redo-ROOT at 2 major academic centers: 638 Any-Redo and 184 True-Redo. Matching based on preoperative demographics and concomitant operations resulted in 174 matched pairs. An independent risk factor analysis was performed to determine risk factors for early and late mortality.

Results

Patients in the True-Redo group were younger, at 49.9 ± 15.1 versus 55.3 ± 14.7 years, P < .001. Concomitant operations were largely similar between the 2 groups, P > .05. Median cardiopulmonary bypass time (P < .001) and aortic crossclamp time (P = .03) were longer for True-Redo group. In-hospital mortality was 13% (109) and was without significant difference between groups, P = .41. Ten-year survival was 78% versus 76% for True-Redo versus Any-Redo groups respectively, P = .7. Landmark survival analysis at 4 years' postoperatively on the matched groups found that patients in the True-Redo group had improved survival outcomes (P = .046). Risk factors of in-hospital mortality consisted of older age (P < .0001), lower ejection fraction (P = .02), and male patient (P = .0003).

Conclusions

Clinical outcomes following redo-ROOT are excellent. Performance of a True-Redo-ROOT does not result in worse in-hospital morbidity or mortality and has improved survival benefit at midterm follow-up when compared with patients in the Any-Redo group. The decision to perform a redo-ROOT must be taken seriously and must be individualized in a patient-specific manner for optimal outcomes.

Outcomes of Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Few studies have reported their experience in explantation of a transcatheter heart valve. We found 2,100 patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) from 2013 through 2021. Of 2,100, a total of 17 patients underwent surgical aortic valve replacement after TAVI, including surgical bailout. The mean age was 78.3 years. Co-morbidities were very frequent, including coronary artery disease (70.6%), atrial fibrillation (52.9%), cerebrovascular disease (47.1%), and pulmonary hypertension (41.2%). A history of cardiac surgery was observed in 6 patients (35.3%). The mean predicted risk of mortality at the time of TAVI was 7.7%. Surgical bailout was the most common indication of valve explantation (n = 8, 47.1%), followed by infective endocarditis (n = 4, 23.5%) and paravalvular leak (n = 2, 11.8%). The valve-in-valve TAVI was not feasible because of endocarditis, paravalvular leak, and history of valve-in-valve TAVI. Overall, 13 (76.5%) were performed urgently or emergently, and 10 (58.9%) required aortic root reconstruction. The mean cardiopulmonary bypass time was 158.5 minutes. In-hospital mortality was 41.2%. Transcatheter heart valve explantation continues to be rare; however, these data will continue to be informative as TAVI explantations will become more common with time.