Valve-Sparing Aortic Root Replacement State-of-the-Art Review, Part II: Surgical Techniques

Aortic valve disease is common, and valve-preserving operations are preferred whenever possible. Valve-sparing aortic root replacement (VSRR) has become an important tool for managing aortic root pathology in children and adults. The learning curve for this operation is challenging, but with increasing experience and technical modifications, early and late outcomes continue to improve. Durable long term results vary based on underlying anatomy, pathology, and patient selection, as well as surgeon expertise. Part II of this VSRR State-of-the-Art Review article provides technical pearls related to VSRR.

Valve-sparing aortic root replacement using a straight tube graft (David I procedure)

OBJECTIVES

We present our 25-year experience with valve-sparing aortic root replacement using a straight tube graft (David-I).

METHODS

From 1993 to 2019, 677 patients (median age, 56.0 years; range, 42-65) underwent the David-I procedure with a straight tube graft. A total of 24 different surgeons performed these operations. Marfan syndrome was present in 111 patients (16.4%), and bicuspid aortic valve was present in 71 patients (10.5%). Aortic root aneurysm was present in 544 patients (80.4%), and acute dissection was present in 133 patients (19.6%).

RESULTS

Ministernotomy was used in 57 patients (8.4%). Additional cusp plasty was performed in 84 patients (12.4%). Concomitant procedures were coronary artery bypass grafting (n = 122, 18.0%), mitral valve surgery (n = 34, 5%), proximal arch replacement (n = 125, 18.4%), subtotal arch replacement (n = 43, 6.4%), and total arch replacement (n = 102, 15.1%). Overall in-hospital mortality was 4.0% (n = 27), and perioperative stroke occurred in 26 patients (3.8%). Postoperative echocardiography showed aortic insufficiency less than I° in 600 of 623 (96.3%). The 1-, 5-, 10-, 15-, and 20-year survivals were 97%, 92%, 79%, 68%, and 50%, respectively. The rates for freedom from aortic valve-related reoperation at 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20 years were 97%, 92%, 87%, 84%, and 80%, respectively. Multivariate Cox regression analysis identified age (odds ratio, 0.974; 95% confidence interval, 0.957-0.992; P = .004), senior surgeon (odds ratio, 0.546; 95% confidence interval, 0.305-0.979; P = .042), and residual postoperative aortic insufficiency (odds ratio, 4.864; 95% confidence interval, 1.124-21.052; P = .034) as independent risk factors for aortic valve-related reoperation.

CONCLUSIONS

The aortic valve-sparing David-I procedure can be performed with very low perioperative morbidity and mortality. The short- and long-term results are excellent. The straight tube graft does not lead to increased leaflet erosion. This procedure is reproducible by multiple surgeons.

Twenty-five year experience with aortic valve-sparing root replacement in a single teaching center

Objectives

Aortic valve-sparing root replacement (AVSRR) is a technically demanding procedure. In experienced centers it offers excellent short- and long-term results, making the procedure an attractive alternative for aortic root replacement especially in young patients. The aim of this study was to analyze long-term results of AVSRR using the David operation in our institution over the last 25 years.

Methods

This is a single-center retrospective analysis of outcomes of David operations performed in a teaching institution not running a large AVSRR-program. Pre-, intra- and postoperative data were collected from the institutional electronic medical record system. Follow-up data were collected through direct contact of the patients and their cardiologists/primary care physicians.

Results

Between 02/1996 and 11/2019, 131 patients underwent David operation in our institution by a total of 17 different surgeons. Median age was 48 (33–59), 18% were female. Elective surgery was performed in 89% of the cases, 11% were operated as emergency in the setting of an acute aortic dissection. Connective tissue disease was present in 24% and 26% had a bicuspid aortic valve. At hospital admission 61% had aortic regurgitation grade ≥3, 12% were in functional NYHA-class ≥III. 30-day mortality was 2%, 97% of the patients were discharged with aortic regurgitation ≤2. In 10-year follow-up, 15 (12%) patients had to be re-operated because of root-related complications. Seven patients (47%) received a transcatheter aortic valve implantation, 8 (53%) required surgical replacement of the aortic valve or a Bentall-De Bono operation. Estimated reoperation-free survival at 5 and 10 years was 93.5% ± 2.4% and 87.0% ± 3.5%, respectively. Subgroup analysis showed no differences in reoperation-free survival for patients presenting with a bicuspid valve or preoperative aortic regurgitation ≥3. However a preoperative left ventricular end diastolic diameter of ≥5.5 cm was associated with worse outcome.

Conclusion

David operations can be performed with excellent perioperative and 10-year follow-up outcomes in centers not running large AVSRR-programs.

Valve-sparing David procedure via minimally invasive access does not compromise outcome

Objectives

Aortic valve sparing-aortic root replacement (David procedure) has not been routinely performed via minimally invasive access due to its complexity. We compared our results of elective David procedure via minimally invasive access to those via a full sternotomy.

Methods

Between 1993 and 2019, a total of 732 patients underwent a valve sparing root replacement (David) procedure. Out of these, 220 patients underwent elective David-I procedure (isolated) without any other concomitant procedures at our center. Patients were assigned to either group A (n = 42, mini-access) or group B (n = 178, full sternotomy).

Results

Cardiopulmonary bypass time were 188.5 ± 35.4 min in group A and 149.0 (135.5–167.5) in group B (p < 0.001). Aortic cross-clamp time were 126.2 ± 27.2 min in group A and 110.0 (97.0–126.0) in group B (p < 0.001). Post-operative echocardiography showed aortic insufficiency ≤ I° in 41 (100%) patients of group A and 155 (95%) of group B. In-hospital mortality was 2.4% (n = 1) in group A and 0% (n = 0) in group B (p = 0.191). Perioperative stroke occurred in 1 (2.4%) patient of group A and 2 (1.1%) patients of group B (p = 0.483). Reexploration for bleeding was necessary in 4 (9.5%) patients of group A and 7 (3.9%) of group B (p = 0.232). Follow-up was complete for 98% of all patients. The 1-, 2-, 4-, and 6-year survival rates were: 97, 97, 97, and 97%, in group A (mini-access) and 99, 96, 95, and 92% in group B (full sternotomy), respectively. The rates for freedom from valve-related re-operation at 1, 2, 4, and 6 years after initial surgery were: 97, 95, 95, and 84% in group A and 97, 95, 91, and 90% in group B, respectively.

Conclusion

Early post-operative results after David procedure via minimally invasive access are comparable to conventional full sternotomy. Meticulous attention to hemostasis is a critical factor during minimally access David procedures. Long-term outcome including the durability of the reimplanted aortic valve seems to be comparable, too.

Preliminary results of a simplified aortic valve-sparing technique: A feasibility study

BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE STUDY

To evaluate whether the simplified valve-sparing technique (SVST) implies clinical outcomes comparable or not with those of established David technique in the surgery of aortic root.

METHODS

We collected the records of patients who had undergone aortic root surgery with the SVST or standard David technique (SDT) at our institution between January 2009 and December 2018. The primary endpoints were the incidence of all-cause death, reoperation for any reason, and postoperative complications. The secondary endpoint was the midterm incidence of reoperation for aortic valve regurgitation.

RESULTS

A total of 169 patients who underwent aortic root surgery were analyzed. SDT and SVST were performed in 48 (28.4%) and in 121 (71.6%) patients, respectively. Thirty-day mortality occurred in 0% and 0.8% of patients in the SDT and SVST groups, respectively. The rate of postoperative new permanent pacemaker implantation was 6.3% (three patients) and 0.8% (one patient) in SDT and SVST cohort, respectively (p = .07). The incidence of postoperative thromboembolic stroke was 6.3% and 2.5% in SDT and SVST groups, respectively (p = .23). The median follow-up time was 29 (23-47) months. During the FU period, no differences were found between two cohorts in terms of all-cause mortality (p = .99), the incidence of reoperation (p = .19), and incidence of aortic valve regurgitation requiring reoperation (p = .58).

CONCLUSIONS

The SVST appears to be safe and feasible showing early clinical results comparable to the SDT. Nevertheless, further studies with larger series and long-term follow-ups are required to demonstrate its safety and efficacy.

Aortic valve neocuspidization and its technical nuance

Aortic valve neocuspidization or Ozaki procedure represents an advanced surgical strategy for the management of patients with aortic valvulopathy. It has been shown to have clinical and hemodynamic outcomes that compare favorably with aortic valve replacement as it restores physiological aortic valve function and left ventricular remodeling. There are, however, a new set of issues including structural valve deterioration, leaflet tear/perforation, and need for reoperation. A keen understanding of the technical nuances involved with the Ozaki procedure may help in reducing the incidence of such adverse outcomes.

Valve-sparing aortic root replacement: a primer for cardiologists

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this article is to review the contemporary evidence supporting valve-sparing aortic root replacement as the best option for patients with aortic root aneurysms and preservable aortic valves as well as to review the technical variations and modern adjuncts of these operations that impact both short and long-term durability.

RECENT FINDINGS

In patients with an aortic root aneurysm, with or without aortic valve regurgitation, valve-sparing aortic root replacement provide excellent clinical outcomes and stable valve function over several decades. Successful execution of this operation depends on careful patient selection and a thorough understanding of the anatomical and physiological relationships between the various components of the aortic root. Echocardiography remains the mainstay of imaging to determine the feasibility of valve-sparing root replacement.

SUMMARY

Valve-sparing aortic root replacement is an excellent alternative to composite valve graft replacement in nonelderly patients with aortic root aneurysms. Dedicated aortic root surgeons perform several technical variations of valve-sparing procedures aimed at matching the specific aortic root disorder with the optimal operation.

The Ross procedure and valve-sparing root replacement procedures in the adult patient: do guidelines follow the evidence?

Prosthetic aortic valve replacements have long been the mainstay of valvular surgery due to their favorable outcomes and low operative complexity. Yet, mechanical valves require lifelong anticoagulation, whereas bioprosthetic valves increase the risk for earlier and more frequent reoperation. Alternative reconstructive techniques have been proposed to address these challenges. These include valve-sparing root replacement procedures if the native aortic valve can be salvaged, and the Ross procedure, which nearly eliminates prosthetic valve-related thromboembolism, anticoagulation-related hemorrhage and endocarditis. Both procedures are technically more complex and thus subject to surgeons' volume and expertise compared to conventional aortic valve replacements. However, they are associated with more favorable outcomes compared to aortic valve replacements if performed by experienced surgeons, especially in younger patients. Nevertheless, despite the growing high-quality literature supporting both procedures, existing multi-society guidelines fail to acknowledge the strength of evidence in support of valve-sparing root replacement procedures and the Ross procedure. In this review, we summarize the existing long-term evidence for the use of each procedure, describe the current guidelines for the treatment of aortic valve pathology, and propose the reevaluation of guidelines based on the available clinical evidence.

Aortic valve-sparing root replacement with Tirone E. David's reimplantation technique: single-centre 25-year experience

 

OBJECTIVES

Tirone E. David described aortic valve-sparing root reimplantion (AVSRR) almost 30 years ago. At our centre, we adopted this operation in 1993, and since then, we have performed >700 operations over a time period of >25 years. In this report, we present our single-centre experience.

METHODS

Between 1993 and 2019, a total of 732 patients underwent AVSRR at our centre. The mean age was 53 ± 15 and 522 (71%) were male. Marfan syndrome was present in 117 (16%) patients and bicuspid aortic valve in 81 (11%). The indication for surgery was aortic root aneurysm in 588 (80%) patients and acute aortic dissection in 144 (20%) patients.

RESULTS

Mini-sternotomy was performed in 74 (10%) patients. A straight tube graft (David I) was used in 677 (92%) and a Valsalva-graft in 55 (8%) patients. Cusp plasty was done in 83 (11%) patients. Concomitant cardiac procedures were performed in 438 (60%) patients. Overall in-hospital mortality was 3.8% (n = 29) and 1.9% (n = 11) in elective cases. Postoperative echocardiography was available for 671 patients and showed aortic insufficiency (AI) ≤I° in 647 (96%) patients. The mean follow-up time was 10 ± 6.7 years and comprised a total of 7307 patient-years. The 1-, 5-, 10- and 15-year survival rates were: 93%, 88%, 77% and 65%, respectively. The rates for freedom from valve-related reoperation at 1, 5, 10 and 15 years after initial surgery were 97%, 93%, 88% and 85%, respectively. Cox regression analysis identified age [odds ratio (OR) = 0.975, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.955-0.995, P = 0.016], hyperlipidaemia (OR = 1.980, 95% CI = 1.175-3.335, P = 0.010), preoperative level of left ventricular ejection function (OR = 1.749, 95% CI = 1.024-2.987, P = 0.041) and postoperative degree of AI (OR = 1.880, 95% CI = 1.532-2.308, P ≤ 0.001) as risk factors for the future AI or reoperation.

CONCLUSIONS

David procedure can be performed extremely safely, with low risks for perioperative morbidity and mortality, both in elective situations via minimally invasive access and in emergent settings for acute aortic type A dissection. Regarding long-term outcome, David's AVSRR seems to provide excellent clinical results and sustainable function of the aortic valve in the majority of patients almost 3 decades after its introduction.