Aortic root replacement with bicuspid valve reimplantation: Are outcomes and valve durability comparable to those of tricuspid valve reimplantation?

OBJECTIVES: To assess intermediate-term outcomes of aortic root replacement with valve-sparing reimplantation of bicuspid aortic valves (BAV), compared with tricuspid aortic valves (TAV). METHODS: From January 2002 to July 2017, 92 adults underwent aortic root replacement with BAV reimplantation and 515 with TAV reimplantation at the Cleveland Clinic. Balancing-score matching based on 28 preoperative variables yielded 71 well-matched BAV and TAV pairs (77% of possible pairs) for comparison of postoperative mortality and morbidity, longitudinal echocardiogram data, aortic valve reoperation, and survival. RESULTS: In the BAV group, 1 hospital death occurred (1.1%); mortality among all reimplantations was 0.2%. Among matched patients, procedural morbidity was low and similar between BAV and TAV groups (1 stroke in TAV group; renal failure requiring dialysis, 1 patient each; red cell transfusion, 25% each). Five-year results: Severe aortic regurgitation was present in 7.4% of the BAV group and 2.9% of the TAV group (P = .7); 39% of BAV and 65% of TAV patients had none. Higher mean gradients (10 vs 7.4 mm Hg; P = .001) and left ventricular mass index (111 vs 101 g/m2; P = .5) were present in BAV patients. Freedom from aortic valve reoperation was 94% in the BAV group and 98% in the TAV group (P = .10), and survival was 100% and 95%, respectively (P = .07). CONCLUSIONS: Both BAV and TAV reimplantations can be performed with equal safety and good midterm outcomes; however, the constellation of higher gradients, less ventricular reverse remodeling, and more aortic valve reoperations with BAV reimplantations raises concerns requiring continued long-term surveillance.

The American Association for Thoracic Surgery consensus guidelines on bicuspid aortic valve-related aortopathy: Executive summary.

Bicuspid aortic valve disease is a common congenital cardiac disorder, being present in 1% to 2% of the general population. Associated aortopathy is a common finding in patients with bicuspid aortic valve disease, with thoracic aortic dilation noted in approximately 40% of patients in referral centers. Several previous consensus statements and guidelines have addressed the management of bicuspid aortic valve-associated aortopathy, but none focused entirely on this disease process. The current document is an executive summary of "The American Association for Thoracic Surgery Guidelines on Bicuspid Aortic Valve-Related Aortopathy." All major aspects of bicuspid aortic valve aortopathy, including natural history, phenotypic expression, histology and molecular pathomechanisms, imaging, indications for surgery, surveillance, and follow-up, and recommendations for future research are contained within these guidelines. The current executive summary serves as a condensed version of the guidelines to provide clinicians with a current and comprehensive review of bicuspid aortic valve aortopathy and to guide the daily management of these complex patients.

The American Association for Thoracic Surgery consensus guidelines on bicuspid aortic valve-related aortopathy: Full online-only version.

Bicuspid aortic valve disease is the most common congenital cardiac disorder, being present in 1% to 2% of the general population. Associated aortopathy is a common finding in patients with bicuspid aortic valve disease, with thoracic aortic dilation noted in approximately 40% of patients in referral centers. Several previous consensus statements and guidelines have addressed the management of bicuspid aortic valve-associated aortopathy, but none focused entirely on this disease process. The current guidelines cover all major aspects of bicuspid aortic valve aortopathy, including natural history, phenotypic expression, histology and molecular pathomechanisms, imaging, indications for surgery, surveillance, and follow-up, and recommendations for future research. It is intended to provide clinicians with a current and comprehensive review of bicuspid aortic valve aortopathy and to guide the daily management of these complex patients.

Durability of Aortic Valve Cusp Repair With and Without Annular Support.

BACKGROUND: To determine the value of aortic valve repair rather than replacement for valve dysfunction, we assessed late outcomes of various repair techniques in the contemporary era. METHODS: From January 2001 to January 2011, aortic valve repair was planned in 1,124 patients. Techniques involved commissural figure-of-8 suspension sutures (n = 63 [6.2%]), cusp repair with commissuroplasty (n = 481 [48%]), debridement (n = 174 [17%]), free-margin plication (n = 271 [27%]) or resection (n = 75) or both, or annulus repair with resuspension (n = 230 [23%]), root reimplantation (n = 252 [25%]), or remodeling (n = 35 [3.5%]). RESULTS: Planned repair was aborted for replacement in 115 patients (10%); risk factors included greater severity of aortic regurgitation (AR; p = 0.0002) and valve calcification (p < 0.0001). In-hospital outcomes for the remaining 1,009 patients included death (12 [1.2%]), stroke (13 [1.3%]), and reoperation for valve dysfunction (14 [1.4%]). Freedom from aortic valve reoperation at 1, 5, and 10 years was 97%, 93%, and 90%, respectively. Figure-of-8 suspension sutures, valve resuspension, and root repair and replacement were least likely to require reoperation; cusp repair with commissural sutures, plication, and commissuroplasty was most likely (p < 0.05). Survival at 1, 5, and 10 years was 96%, 92%, and 83%. Immediate postoperative AR grade was none-mild (94%), moderate (5%), and severe (1%). At 10 years after repair, AR grade was none (20%), mild (33%), moderate (26%), and severe (21%). Patients undergoing root procedures were less likely to have higher-grade postoperative AR (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Valve repair is effective and durable for treating aortic valve dysfunction. Greater severity of AR preoperatively is associated with higher likelihood of repair failure. Commissural figure-of-8 suspension sutures and repair with annular support have the best long-term durability.

Outcomes of a Less-Invasive Approach for Proximal Aortic Operations.

BACKGROUND: Less-invasive techniques have previously been described for mitral and aortic valve operations; however, few studies have examined their benefit for aortic root and ascending aorta reconstruction. Using propensity matching, we compared outcomes of patients undergoing proximal aortic operations through a J incision compared with full sternotomy. METHODS: From January 1995 to January 2014, 8,533 patients underwent proximal aortic operations at Cleveland Clinic. The study population comprised 1,827 patients after those with prior cardiac operations, emergency procedures, endocarditis, or circulatory arrest were excluded; 568 (31%) underwent a J incision. A propensity score based on 57 variables was generated to account for differences in characteristics of full-sternotomy and J-incision patients, producing 483 matched patient pairs (85% of possible) for comparison of outcomes. RESULTS: Among propensity-matched patients, in-hospital mortality (0 [0%] J incision vs 2 [0.41%] full sternotomy; p = 0.2), renal failure (3 [0.62%] vs 6 [1.2%]; p = 0.3), stroke (3 [0.62%] vs 3 [0.62%; p > 0.9), reoperation for bleeding (17 [3.5%] vs 15 [3.1%]; p = 0.7), intraoperative blood products (60 [15%] vs 78 [19%]; p = 0.08), and postoperative transfusions (97 [20%] vs 103 [22%]; p = 0.6) were similar. Intensive care unit (median 24 vs 26 hours) and postoperative hospital stays (median 5.2 vs 6.0 days) were shorter (p < 0.0001) for the J incision, and operative and postoperative direct technical costs were 6% less. CONCLUSIONS: A J incision is a feasible technique for primary isolated elective proximal aortic operations, with a low risk of complications similar to those of full sternotomy, but with the advantages of shorter intensive care unit and hospital stays, lower costs, and better cosmesis.

Long-term survival, valve durability, and reoperation for 4 aortic root procedures combined with ascending aorta replacement.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate long-term results of aortic root procedures combined with ascending aorta replacement for aneurysms, using 4 surgical strategies. METHODS: From January 1995 to January 2011, 957 patients underwent 1 of 4 aortic root procedures: valve preservation (remodeling or modified reimplantation, n = 261); composite biologic graft (n = 297); composite mechanical graft (n = 156); or allograft root (n = 243). RESULTS: Seven deaths occurred (0.73%), none after valve-preserving procedures, and 13 strokes (1.4%). Composite grafts exhibited higher gradients than allografts or valve preservation, but the latter 2 exhibited more aortic regurgitation (2.7% biologic and 0% mechanical composite grafts vs 24% valve-preserving and 19% allografts at 10 years). Within 2 to 5 years, valve preservation exhibited the least left ventricular hypertrophy, allograft replacement the greatest; however, valve preservation had the highest early risk of reoperation, allograft replacement the lowest. Patients receiving allografts had the highest risk of late reoperation (P < .05), and those receiving composite mechanical grafts and valve preservation had the lowest. Composite bioprosthesis patients had the highest risk of late death (57% at 15 years vs 14%-26% for the remaining procedures, P < .0001), because they were substantially older and had more comorbidities (P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: These 4 aortic root procedures, combined with ascending aorta replacement, provide excellent survival and good durability. Valve-preserving and allograft procedures have the lowest gradients and best ventricular remodeling, but they have more late regurgitation, and likely, less risk of valve-related complications, such as bleeding, hemorrhage, and endocarditis. Despite the early risk of reoperation, we recommend valve-preserving procedures for young patients when possible. Composite bioprostheses are preferable for the elderly.

Aortic Dissection in Patients With Bicuspid Aortic Valve-Associated Aneurysms.

BACKGROUND: Data regarding the risk of aortic dissection in patients with bicuspid aortic valve and large ascending aortic diameter are limited, and appropriate timing of prophylactic ascending aortic replacement lacks consensus. Thus our objectives were to determine the risk of aortic dissection based on initial cross-sectional imaging data and clinical variables and to isolate predictors of aortic intervention in those initially prescribed serial surveillance imaging. METHODS: From January 1995 to January 2014, 1,181 patients with bicuspid aortic valve underwent cross-sectional computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to ascertain sinus or tubular ascending aortic diameter greater than or equal to 4.7 cm. Random Forest classification was used to identify risk factors for aortic dissection, and among patients undergoing surveillance, time-related analysis was used to identify risk factors for aortic intervention. RESULTS: Prevalence of type A dissection that was detected by imaging or was found at operation or on follow-up was 5.3% (n = 63). Probability of type A dissection increased gradually at a sinus diameter of 5.0 cm--from 4.1% to 13% at 7.2 cm--and then increased steeply at an ascending aortic diameter of 5.3 cm--from 3.8% to 35% at 8.4 cm--corresponding to a cross-sectional area to height ratio of 10 cm(2)/m for sinuses of Valsalva and 13 cm(2)/m for the tubular ascending aorta. Cross-sectional area to height ratio was the best predictor of type A dissection (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.73). CONCLUSIONS: Early prophylactic ascending aortic replacement in patients with bicuspid aortic valve should be considered at high-volume aortic centers to reduce the high risk of preventable type A dissection in those with aortas larger than approximately 5.0 cm or with a cross-sectional area to height ratio greater than approximately 10 cm(2)/m.

Long-term durability of bicuspid aortic valve repair.

BACKGROUND: Bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) is the most common congenital cardiac malformation, occurring in 1% to 2% of the population. Eventually, 20% develop clinically important valvar regurgitation requiring surgical intervention. Aortic valve repair avoids anticoagulation and prosthetic valve-related complications. This study evaluated long-term durability of BAV repair. METHODS: From 1985 to 2011, 728 patients, mean age 42±12 years, underwent BAV repair at Cleveland Clinic. Mean follow-up was 9.0±6.2 years (median, 8.3). Factors associated with repair durability (expressed as aortic valve reoperations and echocardiographically estimated gradients and regurgitation) and survival were identified. RESULTS: Hospital mortality was 0.41% (n=3), and stroke occurred in 0.27% (n=2). Freedom from aortic valve reoperation at 10 years was 78%. Risk of reoperation was highest immediately after operation and fell rapidly to approximately 2.6%/year up to 15 years. Primary reasons for reoperation were cusp prolapse (38%), aortic stenosis or regurgitation (17%), and aortic regurgitation from root aneurysm (15%). Aortic valve gradients showed an early initial peak, rapidly declined, then rose steadily, accompanied by an increase in left ventricular mass. Survival was 94% at 10 years. A risk factor for early death was greater preoperative mitral valve regurgitation, and for late death, older age at operation, more severe symptoms, and poorer left ventricular function. CONCLUSIONS: BAV repair is safe and durable with low mortality, low prevalence of reoperation, and good long-term survival. Cusp prolapse from technical errors and natural progression of disease are the most common causes for reoperation, but progressive natural increase in valve gradient accounts for a substantial proportion as well.

Midterm results of David reimplantation in patients with connective tissue disorder.

BACKGROUND: Few series have examined follow-up risks of the David reimplantation operation in patients with connective tissue disorder. Hence, we assessed its midterm safety and effectiveness for Marfan syndrome and other connective tissue disorders, such as Ehlers-Danlos, Loeys-Dietz, and marfanoid syndromes. METHODS: Of 313 patients who underwent modified David reimplantation, 178 identified as having connective tissue disorders underwent operation from January 1, 1991, to December 31, 2010. These disorders included Marfan (84%), marfanoid (8.4%), Loeys-Dietz (5.6%), Ehlers-Danlos (1.1%), and other syndromes (1.1%). Concomitant procedures included mitral valve repair in 7.3% and an atrial fibrillation procedure in 3.4%. RESULTS: There were no operative or 30-day deaths. Complications included prolonged ventilation (3%), renal failure (3%), reoperation for bleeding (2.2%), and permanent stroke (0.56%). Eight-year survival was 94% and freedom from aortic valve reoperation at 6 years was 92%. Of the 7 aortic valve reoperations, 3 were attributable to endocarditis and 3 to technical failure. One reoperation was performed at another hospital, and the reason could not be determined. There were no late strokes or hemorrhagic events. At 4 years, approximately 70% of patients had no aortic valve regurgitation, and 18% were in grade 1+. CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic root and valve preservation using David reimplantation is safe and provides excellent midterm effectiveness and low risk of late events except for endocarditis.

Results of matching valve and root repair to aortic valve and root pathology.

OBJECTIVE: For patients with aortic root pathology and aortic valve regurgitation, aortic valve replacement is problematic because no durable bioprosthesis exists, and mechanical valves require lifetime anticoagulation. This study sought to assess outcomes of combined aortic valve and root repair, including comparison with matched bioprosthesis aortic valve replacement. METHODS: From November 1990 to January 2005, 366 patients underwent modified David reimplantation (n = 72), root remodeling (n = 72), or valve repair with sinotubular junction tailoring (n = 222). Active follow-up was 99% complete, with a mean of 5.6 ± 4.0 years (maximum 17 years); follow-up for vital status averaged 8.5 ± 3.6 years (maximum 19 years). Propensity-adjusted models were developed for fair comparison of outcomes. RESULTS: Thirty-day and 5-, 10-, and 15-year survivals were 98%, 86%, 74%, and 58%, respectively, similar to that of the US matched population and better than that after bioprosthesis aortic valve replacement. Propensity-score-adjusted survival was similar across procedures (P > .3). Freedom from reoperation at 30 days and 5 and 10 years was 99%, 92%, and 89%, respectively, and was similar across procedures (P > .3) after propensity-score adjustment. Patients with tricuspid aortic valves were more likely to be free of reoperation than those with bicuspid valves at 10 years (93% vs 77%, P = .002), equivalent to bioprosthesis aortic valve replacement and superior after 12 years. Bioprostheses increasingly deteriorated after 7 years, and hazard functions for reoperation crossed at 7 years. CONCLUSIONS: Valve preservation (rather than replacement) and matching root procedures have excellent early and long-term results, with increasing survival benefit at 7 years and fewer reoperations by 12 years. We recommend this procedure for experienced surgical teams.

Bicuspid aortic valve surgery with proactive ascending aorta repair.

OBJECTIVES: Bicuspid aortic valves are associated with aortic catastrophes, particularly dissection. We examined whether proactive repair of associated dilatation would reduce risk of subsequent aortic dissection or reoperation and whether more aggressive resection is needed in patients undergoing bicuspid aortic valve surgery alone. METHODS: From January 1993 to June 2003, 1989 patients (of our total experience of 4316) underwent bicuspid aortic valve surgery. Long-term outcomes of 1810 were analyzed according to aortic size and whether bicuspid aortic valve surgery was performed alone or with aortic repair. RESULTS: In-hospital 30-day survival was similar (98.8% valve alone vs 98.9% with aortic repair), with no penalty incurred for concomitant aortic repair. Bicuspid aortic valve-alone patients had worse late survival (75% vs 85% at 10 years, P = .0001), but in the matched cohort survival was nearly identical (85% vs 86%; P = .7). With this strategy, freedom from late aortic events was high in both groups (99% valve alone vs 97% with aortic repair at 10 years; P[log-rank] = .06) and similar in the matched cohort (95% vs 97%; P = .2). Approximately 95% of patients undergoing valve-alone surgery had aortic diameters smaller than 4.6 cm or cross-sectional area/height ratios less than 9.4 cm(2)/m; 80% undergoing valve surgery plus aortic repair had diameters larger than 4.1 cm or ratios greater than 7.3 cm(2)/m. Only 0.2% of events occurred at an aortic diameter size of less than 4.5 cm. CONCLUSIONS: Aortic size larger than 4.5 cm or aortic cross-sectional area/height ratio greater than 8 to 10 should be considered triggers for concurrent aortic repair, because there is no added risk, and late survival is better; however, more aggressive resection is unwarranted.

Nonstress delayed-enhancement magnetic resonance imaging of the myocardium predicts improvement of function after revascularization for chronic ischemic heart disease with left ventricular dysfunction.

BACKGROUND: The extent of myocardial scarring of the left ventricle (LV) is important in patients with chronic ischemic heart disease (CIHD). With delayed-enhancement magnetic resonance imaging (DE-MRI), scarred myocardium (hyper-enhanced) is easily distinguishable from viable (dark) myocardium. This investigation assessed the use of DE-MRI for predicting functional improvement after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients with CIHD and significant LV dysfunction. METHODS: The patient population (n = 29) with CIHD and LV dysfunction (ejection fraction 28% +/- 10%) underwent both DE-MRI, to delineate scarred regions before revascularization, and echocardiography (Echo), to assess segmental function before and after CABG (interval 188 +/- 57 days). Using a 16-segment model, LV myocardium was semiquantitatively analyzed for scarring based on DE-MRI and for improvements in resting function by pre- and post-CABG Echo. RESULTS: Before CABG, 82% of targeted myocardial segments had abnormal contraction; 78% showed scarring, including 38% with greater than mild amounts (25%-100%). Normal contraction was found in 18% of segments before revascularization; scarred areas were identified in 42%, 84% of which had, at most, minimal amounts (0%-24%). Of segments with pre-CABG dysfunction, 82% with no evidence of scar recovered, compared to only 18% with > or =50% scarring. Amount of hyper-enhancement was a very good indicator of improvement of function, especially at the > or =50%/segment threshold; overall accuracy was 0.74 (95% CI 0.66-0.82, P <.001). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with CIHD and significant LV dysfunction, DE-MRI can predict likelihood of functional improvement after revascularization.