Composite aortic valve graft replacement: mortality outcomes in a national registry

Midterm follow-up of composite graft replacement of the aortic root (30-year experience)-remarkably safe, effective, and durable

Objectives

Contemporary operative choices for aortic root disease include aortic root replacement (ARR) and a variety of valve-sparing and aortic root-repair procedures. We evaluate ultra-long-term outcomes of ARR, focusing on survival, freedom from late reoperation, and adverse events.

Methods

Prospectively kept records were used to accomplish long-term follow-up of patients who underwent ARR (4-pronged Yale survival assessment paradigm).

Results

Between 1990 and 2020, 564 patients underwent ARR (mean 56 years, 84% male). A modified Cabrol procedure (Dacron coronary graft) was employed in 9.0% (51/564) and concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting in 9.4% (53/564). There were 12.8% (72/564) urgent/emergent and 7.4% (42/564) redo procedures. Operative mortality occurred in 12 patients (2.1%) overall, or 1.4% (8/554) of nondissection and 1.3% (6/468) of elective first-time operations. Six of the 12 deaths presented with acute type A dissection, urgent operation, or reoperative states. Operative mortality dropped to 0.6% during the past 10 years. In total, 11 patients developed endocarditis. Stroke occurred in 11 of 564 patients (2.0%), 4 of whom had presented with type A dissection. Late events included bleeding in 2.8% (16/564), thromboembolism in 1.4% (8/564), and reoperation of the root in 5 of 564 (0.9%) at 15 years and more distal aortic segments in 16/564 (2.8%). Survival was no different from age/sex-matched controls.

Conclusions

This ultra-long-term experience finds ARR to be extraordinarily safe, effective, and durable, with minimal long-term bleeding, thromboembolism, or graft failure. This experience provides a standard of durability for ARR against which ultra-long-term outcomes with alternate procedures (valve-sparing, Ross, other) may be compared.

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.

Comparison of Quality of Life Perceived by Patients with Bioprosthetic versus Mechanical Valves after Composite Aortic Root Replacement

Objective: To assess whether postoperative quality of life (QOL) for composite aortic root replacement patients differs according to whether it is based on the use of mechanical valves or bioprosthetic valves. Methods: The study included 146 consecutive patients who underwent composite aortic root replacement at our institution from January 2010 to April 2014 with bioprosthetic (34.9%, n = 51) and mechanical (65.1%, n = 95) valves. Patient-perceived QOL was measured by administering the Short Form (SF)-36v2 Health Survey and a series of supplemental questions to further evaluate valve-specific differences. Final survey participation (n = 121) included 82.9% of the qualifying patients, and involved 76.5% (39/51) of those with bioprosthetic valves and 86.3% (82/95) of those with mechanical valves. Reasons for not completing the survey included 5 expired patients (3.4%), 1 lost due to a language barrier (0.7%), 6 who refused to participate (4.1%) and 13 who were lost to follow-up (8.9%). The mean follow-up time was 32 months (range 4-56 months). Results: Patients in the bioprosthetic valve group were older (mean age 67.5 ± 13.6 years) and included more females (25.6% or 10/39) than those in the mechanical valve group (mean age 56.6 ± 12.0 years; 11.0% or 9/82 were female). No significant differences were found between the bioprosthetic and mechanical valve groups for any QOL aspects scored by the SF-36v2 survey. All 8 domains and 2 summary scales comprising the QOL evaluation were above national norms calculated using gender- and age-matched, norm-based scoring for a standard national average of 50. The supplemental questions indicated satisfaction with each valve type despite characteristics that were of concern to patients. In the mechanical valve group, 90.2% (74/82) reported that the audible valve click was not troublesome, 85.4% (70/82) that taking a blood thinner regularly did not affect daily life and 81.7% (67/82) that blood testing for anticoagulation therapy was not troublesome. Conclusions: Receiving a tissue or a mechanical valve does not directly affect postoperative QOL. Answers to supplemental questions suggest that prior concerns with mechanical valves do not affect patients in the commonly anticipated negative manner. The preconception of a heavy QOL burden for mechanical composite grafts is contradicted by this study.

Life Saver: Aortic Wrapping

Reoperative aortic root reconstruction remains a formidable surgical challenge. Thereof, the wrapping of Dacron graft using remnants of native aorta may be reasonable to avoid complications such as bleeding and infection. Our case that had a modified Bentall procedure at our institute was reoperated because of discontinuity between left ventricular outflow and valved aortic conduit. During reoperation, proximal portion of the valved conduit was partially separated from its attachment in the left ventricular outflow tract. The residual native aorta that was wrapped around the Dacron graft was like in a shape of sac. This technique may play a major role in preventing rupture of the ascending aorta in case of separation of valved conduit from left ventricular outflow.

Effect of aortic aneurysm replacement on outcomes after bicuspid aortic valve surgery: validation of contemporary guidelines

OBJECTIVE

Bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) disease is associated with aortic dilatation and aneurysm (AN) formation. The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) 2006 guidelines recommend replacement of the ascending aorta for an aortic diameter (AD)> 45 mm in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR). We evaluated the outcomes of AVR and AVR with aortic replacement (AVR/AN).

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed (2004-2011) the data from 456 patients with BAV and compared the morbidity and mortality between the AVR and AVR/AN groups and 3 subgroups: AVR with an AD<45 mm; AVR/AN with an AD of 45 to 49 mm; and AVR/AN with an AD of ≥50 mm. Propensity score matching was used to reduce bias.

RESULTS

Of the 456 patients, 250 (55%) underwent AVR and 206 (45%) AVR/AN, with 98% compliance with the current guidelines. The overall 30-day mortality was 0.9%. The AVR AD<45-mm group had adjusted short- and medium-term survival similar to that of the AVR/AN AD 45- to 49-mm and AVR/AN AD≥50-mm groups, with a 30-day mortality of 0.8%, 0%, and 1.9%, respectively (P=.41). The propensity score-matched AVR/AN AD≥50-mm group had significantly greater rates of reintubation than either the AVR AD<45-mm (P=.012) or AVR/AN AD 45- to 49-mm (P=.04) group and greater rates of prolonged ventilation (P=.022) than the AVR AD<45-mm group. No significant differences were found in reoperation or myocardial infarction among the subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with undergoing AVR, no increase was seen in morbidity or mortality when adding aortic replacement with an AD of 45 to 49 mm, in accordance with the 2006 ACC/AHA guidelines, although the AVR/AN AD≥50-mm group had a greater risk of respiratory complications. Our findings indicate that compliance with the ACC/AHA guidelines is safe in select centers.

Potential biomarkers for predicting outcomes in CABG cardiothoracic surgeries

The variations in recovery time, complications, and survival among cardiac patients who have undergone coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) procedures are vast. Many formulas and theories are used to predict clinical outcome and recovery time, and current prognostic predictions are based on medical and family history, lifestyle, co-morbidities, and performance status. The identification of biomarkers that provide concrete evidence supporting clinical outcome has greatly affected the field of medicine, helping clinicians in many medicine sub-specialties to forecast clinical course. Recent studies have discovered biomarkers that may be used as predictors of cardiac patients' status post-cardiothoracic surgery, and the applications are numerous. In this review, we assess currently available cardiac biomarkers as predictors of clinical outcome for post-operative CABG patients. Data were collected from various studies in which cardiac biomarkers were measured in pre-operative and post-operative CABG patients.

Pro/con debate: Is intensive insulin therapy targeting tight blood glucose control of benefit in critically ill patients?

You have decided to develop a protocol for insulin therapy in your intensive care unit (ICU). You wonder about the merit of using intensive insulin therapy (IIT) to maintain tight blood glucose control in your patients.