The aortic root does not dilate over time after replacement of the aortic valve and ascending aorta in patients with bicuspid or tricuspid aortic valves.

OBJECTIVE: Whether the aortopathy associated with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) disease occurs secondary to genetic or hemodynamic factors remains controversial. In this article we describe the natural history of the aortic root in patients with bicuspid versus tricuspid aortic valves (TAVs) after replacement of the aortic valve and ascending aorta. METHODS: From 1990 to 2010, 406 patients (269 BAV, 137 TAV) underwent aortic valve and ascending aorta replacement at a single institution. Patients with aortic dissection, endocarditis, previous aortic surgery, or Marfan syndrome were excluded. All available follow-up imaging was reviewed. RESULTS: Mean imaging follow-up was 5.5 (±5.3) years. Of all patients, 66.5% had at least 1 aortic root measurement after the index operation. Baseline aortic diameter was comparable between groups. In patients with BAV, aortic root diameter increased at a clinically negligible rate over time (0.654 mm per year; 95% confidence interval, 0.291-1.016; P < .001), similar to patients with TAV (P = .92). Mean clinical follow-up was 8.1 (±5.4) years. During follow-up, 18 patients underwent reoperation, 89% for a degenerated bioprosthetic aortic valve. Only 1 patient underwent reoperation for a primary indication of aortic aneurysmal disease, 22 years after the index operation. There were no differences in cumulative incidence rates of aortic reoperation (P = .14) between patients with BAV and TAV. CONCLUSIONS: Mid-term imaging after aortic valve and ascending aorta replacement indicates that if the aortic root is not dilated at the time of surgery, the risk of enlargement over time is minimal, negating the need for prophylactic root replacement in patients with BAV or TAV.

Long-Term Outcomes of the Ross Procedure Versus Mechanical Aortic Valve Replacement: Propensity-Matched Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The ideal aortic valve substitute in young and middle-aged adults remains unknown. We sought to compare the long-term outcomes of patients undergoing the Ross procedure and those receiving a mechanical aortic valve replacement (AVR). METHODS: From 1990 to 2014, 258 patients underwent a Ross procedure and 1444 had a mechanical AVR at a single institution. Patients were matched into 208 pairs through the use of a propensity score. Mean age was 37.2±10.2 years, and 63% were male. Mean follow-up was 14.2±6.5 years. RESULTS: Overall survival was equivalent (Ross versus AVR: hazard ratio, 0.91, 95% confidence interval, 0.38-2.16; P=0.83), although freedom from cardiac- and valve-related mortality was improved in the Ross group (Ross versus AVR: hazard ratio, 0.22; 95% confidence interval, 0.034-0.86; P=0.03). Freedom from reintervention was equivalent after both procedures (Ross versus AVR: hazard ratio, 1.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.76-4.94; P=0.18). Long-term freedom from stroke or major bleeding was superior after the Ross procedure (Ross versus AVR: hazard ratio, 0.09; 95% confidence interval, 0.02-0.31; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Long-term survival and freedom from reintervention were comparable between the Ross procedure and mechanical AVR. However, the Ross procedure was associated with improved freedom from cardiac- and valve-related mortality and a significant reduction in the incidence of stroke and major bleeding. In specialized centers, the Ross procedure represents an excellent option and should be considered for young and middle-aged adults undergoing AVR.