Long-Term Survival and Freedom From Coronary Artery Reintervention After Arterial Switch Operation for Transposition of the Great Arteries: A Population-Based Nationwide Study.

Background The aim of this study was to evaluate long-term survival and freedom from coronary artery reintervention after the arterial switch operation (ASO). Methods and Results This single-center nationwide retrospective study included consecutive children who underwent ASO between 1990 and 2016 (n=605). Long-term outcomes were obtained by cross-mapping individual data with the National Death Registry and the National Registry of Cardiovascular Interventions for adults. A control group was randomly retrieved at a 1:10 ratio from the National Birth and Death Registries. Early mortality was 3.3% and late mortality was 1.7% during a median follow-up of 10 (interquartile range, 5-16) years. The probability of overall survival at 20 years after ASO was 94.9% compared with 99.5% in the background population (hazard ratio [HR] 15.6; 95% CI, 8.9-27.5, P<0.001). Independent multivariable predictors of worse survival were an intramural coronary artery (HR, 5.2; 95% CI, 1.8-15.2, P=0.002) and period of ASO 1990 to 1999 (HR, 4.6; 95% CI, 1.5-13.6, P<0.001). Fourteen patients (2.3%) required 16 coronary artery reoperations. Freedom from coronary artery reintervention at 20 years after ASO was 96%. The only independent multivariable predictor associated with a higher hazard for coronary artery reintervention was an intramural coronary artery (HR, 33.9; 95% CI, 11.8-97.5, P<0.001). Conclusions Long-term survival after ASO is excellent. Coronary artery reinterventions are rare. An intramural coronary artery was an independent predictor associated with a higher risk for coronary artery reintervention and death, regardless of the surgical period.

David reimplantation with simultaneous total arch replacement and stented elephant trunk for acute type A aortic dissection.

OBJECTIVES: To compare early and mid-term outcomes between David reimplantation and the Bentall procedure with simultaneous total arch replacement (TAR) and stented elephant trunk (SET) implantation in acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD). METHODS: From January 2012 to June 2018, 148 patients underwent aortic root replacement combined with TAR and SET for ATAAD. Patients were evaluated retrospectively and categorized into David reimplantation (n = 55) and Bentall procedure (n = 93) groups. Propensity-matched analysis was performed to compare in-hospital and follow-up adverse events between the 2 groups. RESULTS: In-hospital mortality and the incidence of major perioperative complications were comparable between the 2 groups (all P > .05). No significant difference in mean cardiopulmonary bypass time and circulatory arrest time was found between the 2 groups, although mean crossclamp time was longer in the David group (P = .02). During a follow-up period of 2.6 (interquartile range, 1.5-4.3) years, the Bentall group experienced rates of paravalvular leakage and prosthetic valve endocarditis of 2.3% and 2.3%, respectively, whereas the David group experienced rates of infective endocarditis and recurrent moderate aortic regurgitation of 1.9% and 1.9%, respectively. The overall survival was 82.9% for the David group and 89.2% for the Bentall group (P = .63), whereas the incidence of major cardiovascular-related events was 21.3% and 17.3% (P = .30) 5 years postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: For Chinese patients undergoing ATAAD, David reimplantation provided similar outcomes compared with the Bentall procedure, with simultaneous TAR and SET. David reimplantation is an appealing option for patients who suffer root ectasia or extensive sinus damage albeit normal leaflets.

Aortic Valve-Sparing Root Replacement (David I Procedure) in Adolescents: Long-Term Outcome.

INTRODUCTION: Aortic valve-sparing root replacement (David's procedure) is an especially appealing treatment option for young patients. Here, we present the short-, mid, and long-term outcomes of this operation in adolescent patients. METHODS: Between September 1994 and March 2014, 29 patients aged 6 to 21 years underwent the David-I procedure at our center. We conducted a retrospective study with follow-up. RESULTS: The mean age was 16.8 ± 3.4 years and 90% (n = 26) were male. Marfan's syndrome was present in 86% (n = 25) of cases. Ninety-seven percent (n = 28) of cases were performed electively, and one case (3%) was performed emergently for acute aortic dissection type A. There were no early perioperative deaths (0%). Follow-up, which was completed on 100% of patients, comprised a total of 394 patient years and a mean follow-up time of 13.6 ± 5.4 years. The estimates for survival at 1, 5, and 10 years after initial surgery were 100, 97, and 93%, respectively. During follow-up, there were four (14%) late deaths and five (17%) aortic valve-related reoperations. The 1-, 5-, and 10-year estimates for freedom from valve-related reoperation were 100, 86, and 83%, respectively. The perioperative mortality for these five reoperations was 0%. DISCUSSION: Aortic valve-sparing root replacement can be performed in adolescents with a very low perioperative risk. Long-term survival seems to be affected by connective tissue diseases.

Repair of pulmonary artery sling with tracheal and intracardiac defects.

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary artery sling is commonly associated with tracheal stenosis and intracardiac anomalies. While surgical repair is standardized, coexistent anomalies often determine outcomes. With the paucity of risk stratification, this study aimed to review our experience and stratify risk factors for the surgical outcome of complex pulmonary artery sling repair in the presence of airway or intracardiac lesions. METHODS: Seventy-nine consecutive children with pulmonary artery sling were evaluated retrospectively following surgical repair. Median age at surgery was 5 months (interquartile range 3-9). Surgical approaches included pulmonary artery sling alone (n = 10), pulmonary artery sling with tracheoplasty (n = 41), and pulmonary artery sling with both intracardiac and tracheal surgery (n = 28). RESULTS: There were 7 early (8.8%) deaths. Two patients after left pulmonary artery reimplantation needed revision of the anastomosis. The median intensive care and hospital stay were 11 (interquartile range 9.2-24.8) and 17.9 (interquartile range 4.3-19.8) days, and considerably longer when associated tracheal surgery (p = 0.002). Follow-up was complete in 66/69 and 3 (3.8%) children died late: 2.7, 10.2, and 17 months after surgery. Univariate analysis showed abnormal lung and coexisting structural heart disease as risk factors. Multivariate analysis revealed total cardiopulmonary bypass time as an independent predictor of overall mortality. CONCLUSION: Complex pulmonary artery sling repair can be performed with a good surgical outcomes even when associated with airway malformations or structural heart diseases. Lung abnormality and longer cardiopulmonary bypass time as a surrogate marker of complex surgery, are possible risk factors.

Combined Surgical and Endoscopic Approach for Ring-Sling Complex.

BACKGROUND: Left pulmonary artery (LPA) sling (PAS) is a vascular ring, which is frequently associated with long-segment tracheal stenosis (TS). Mortality rate in operated children is still high, especially in cases of severe tracheal hypoplasia and/or associated congenital heart defects (CHDs). We report our experience of treatment and follow-up in a pediatric cohort of patients affected by PAS with severe tracheobronchial involvement. METHODS: From 2005 to 2017, we enrolled 11 children diagnosed with PAS and congenital TS requiring surgical intervention. Echocardiography, computed tomography, and bronchoscopy were performed in all patients. Associated CHD were present in 5 (45%) patients. Tracheal reconstruction techniques included slide tracheoplasty (7/11; 63%), slide tracheoplasty and costal cartilage graft (2/11; 18%), and Hazekamp technique (2/11; 18%).Nine patients underwent LPA direct reimplantation and concomitant tracheoplasty; concomitant surgical repair for CHD was performed in three children. RESULTS: Over a mean follow-up of 30 months (range: 3-75 months), a late mortality of 18% was registered; no early death occurred. Good flow through LPA could be documented in all patients. Ten children required operative bronchoscopies (mean: 16/patients) aimed at stent positioning/removal, treatment of granulomas, and tracheobronchial dilatation. CONCLUSIONS: Severe tracheobronchial stenosis and associated CHD were the main determinants for hospitalization time, intensive assistance, and repeated endoscopic procedures.Patients affected by PAS/TS complex require a careful management at high-specialized centers providing multidisciplinary team.Respiratory endoscopy may play a central role both in preoperatory assessment and in postoperative management of patients showing severe tracheobronchial involvement.

Predictors of Outcome for Aortic Valve Reimplantation Including the Surgeon-A Single-Center Experience.

INTRODUCTION: Aortic valve reimplantation is considered technically demanding. We searched for predictors of long-term outcome including the surgeon as risk factor. METHODS: We selected all aortic valve reimplantations performed in our department between December 1999 and January 2017 and obtained a complete follow-up. The main indications were combined aortic aneurysm plus aortic valve regurgitation (AR), 69% and aortic dissections (15%). In 14%, valves were bicuspid. Cusp repair was performed in 27% of patients. One-third received additional procedures (coronary artery bypass grafting, mitral, or arch surgery). We performed multivariable analyses for independent risk factors of short- and long-term outcomes, including "surgeon" as variable. Twelve different surgeons operated on 193 patients. We created three groups: surgeons A and B with 84 and 64 procedures, respectively, and surgeon C (10 surgeons for 45 patients). RESULTS: Cardiopulmonary bypass and clamp times were 176 ± 45 and 130 ± 24 minutes, respectively. In-hospital mortality was 2%. Postoperatively, 5% had mild and 0.5% had moderate AR. Kaplan-Meier's survival estimates, freedom from reoperation, and freedom from severe AR at 12 years were 97 ± 1, 93 ± 2, and 91 ± 3%, respectively. Age and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease appeared as risk factors for perioperative complications by univariate analysis. Age, coronary artery disease, and duration of cardiopulmonary bypass, but not surgeon, presented as risk factors by multivariable analysis. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that if a David procedure is performed successfully, long-term durability may be excellent. They also suggest that good and durable results are possible even with limited experience of the operating surgeon.

Long-term experience with valve-sparing reimplantation technique for the treatment of aortic aneurysm and aortic regurgitation.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze our long-term experience with valve-sparing reimplantation technique for the treatment of isolated root aneurysm, aneurysm with significant aortic regurgitation, and for isolated aortic regurgitation. METHODS: Between 1999 and 2017, 440 consecutive patients underwent valve-sparing reimplantation in our institution. The mean age of this cohort was 49 ± 15 years. Time-to-event analysis was performed with the Kaplan-Meier method, whereas significant predictors of late outcomes were explored with Cox proportional hazard model. RESULTS: In-hospital mortality was 0.7% (n = 3). Four hundred fourteen patients were available for long-term analysis. Median duration of follow-up was 5 years (interquartile range, 2-8.5 years). Thirty-six patients (8.5%) died during follow-up; therefore, survival was 79.7% ± 3.8% at 10 years. During follow-up we observed a linearized rate of 0.37%, 0.73%, and 0.2% patient-year, respectively, for major bleeding, thromboembolic events, and infective endocarditis. Nineteen patients required late aortic valve reoperation and freedom from valve reoperation was 89.6% ± 2.9% at 10 years and was not significantly different between groups or between tricuspid or bicuspid valve phenotypes. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that valve-sparing reimplantation is associated with low perioperative mortality, a remarkably low rate of valve-related complications, and excellent long-term durability. Further, it can be safely performed also in patients with isolated aortic regurgitation and the durability of valve repair is similar regardless of the indication for surgery of valve phenotype.

Modified sizing technique with newly designed tools to facilitate the valve sparing aortic root replacement "David" procedure with mid-term results.

BACKGROUND: Valve sparing root replacement differs in specific points. The main target remains to achieve a perfect intraoperative result and long-term stability. We aimed in this study to present our modified sizing technique for valve-sparing "David" procedure and its mid-term results. METHODS: We present a retrospective single-center study. A newly designed sizing ring in addition to triple-armed forceps (Trifeet®) was used to measure the proper size of the Valsalva® prosthesis for patients undergoing David-procedure. Primary endpoints are intraoperative aortic regurgitation (AR) and early postoperative outcomes. Secondary endpoints included freedom from aortic regurgitation or reoperation and overall mortality. RESULTS: A total of 63 consecutive patients who underwent David procedure between 09/2012 and 12/2016 were evaluated. Mean age was 52±15 years and 76.2% were male. Moderate to severe aortic regurgitation was reported in 60 (95.2%) patients. Four (6.3%) patients presented with type-A aortic dissection, 20 (31.7%) patients had bicuspid and 3 (4.8%) had a unicuspid aortic valve, 2 (3.2%) patients had a prior aortic valve repair. Intraoperative echocardiography revealed no 34 (54%), trace 26 (41.2%) or moderate 3 (4.8%) AR. Stroke, myocardial infarction, and 30-day mortality occurred in 1 patient (1.6%). During follow-up 5 (7.9%) patients needed reoperation due to recurrent AR within a mean of 35±18 months. One could be re-repaired, and the other four underwent aortic valve replacement. A second patient died in the late follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Our modified sizing technique simplifies the "David-procedure" and allows to achieve a good intraoperative and mid-term results. However, these results have to be confirmed in a larger cohort with a long-term follow-up.

Combined David and Frozen Elephant Trunk Procedure in Acute Aortic Dissection.

BACKGROUND: Valve sparing aortic root repair by reimplantation (David procedure) is an established technique in acute aortic dissection Stanford type A involving the aortic root. In DeBakey type I dissection, aortic arch replacement using the frozen elephant trunk (FET) was introduced to promote aortic remodeling of the downstream aorta. The combination of these two complex procedures represents a challenging surgical strategy and was considered too risky so far. METHODS: All patients with acute aortic dissection DeBakey type I undergoing valve sparing aortic root repair by reimplantation technique of David combined with extended aortic repair using the FET at our center between October 2009 and December 2016 were evaluated. Outcomes are compared with patients who underwent prosthetic aortic root replacement and FET for aortic dissection in the same timeframe. RESULTS: A total of 28 patients received combined David and FET procedure, while 20 patients received prosthetic aortic root replacement and FET procedure. Thirty-day mortality was 10.7% (n = 3) for the David group and 20% (n = 4) for the root replacement group (p = 0.43). Postoperative echocardiographic control revealed an excellent aortic valve function with regurgitation grade 0° or maximum grade I° and a mean gradient of 4.3 ± 2.1 mm Hg in all patients in the David group versus 7.2 ± 2.4 mm Hg in the aortic root replacement group, p = 0.003. Computed tomography angiography scan showed positive aortic remodeling in all but three patients (91.9%). Mid-term follow-up survival was 82.1% in the David group and 68.4% in the root replacement group, p = 0.28. There was no need for reintervention at the root or descending aorta. CONCLUSION: Simultaneous application of the David and FET procedure in patients with acute aortic dissection is safe and feasible in experienced hands as compared with standard aortic root replacement plus FET. The mid-term outcomes are encouraging and noninferior to conventional surgery results.

Inferior mesenteric artery replantation does not decrease the risk of ischemic colitis after open infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

BACKGROUND: Ischemic colitis after an open abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair remains a serious complication with a nationally reported rate of 1% to 6% in elective cases and up to 60% after an aneurysmal rupture. To prevent this serious complication, inferior mesenteric artery (IMA) replantation is performed at the discretion of the surgeon based on his or her intraoperative findings, despite the lack of clear evidence to support this practice. The purpose of this study was to determine whether replantation of the IMA reduces the risk of ischemic colitis and improves the overall outcome of AAA repair. METHODS: Patients who underwent open infrarenal AAA repair were identified in the multicenter American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Targeted AAA Database from 2012 to 2015. Emergency cases, patients with chronically occluded IMAs, ruptured aneurysms with evidence of hypotension, and patients requiring visceral revascularization were excluded. The remaining elective cases were divided into two groups: those with IMA replantation (IMA-R) and those with IMA ligation. We measured the 30-day outcomes including mortality, morbidity, and perioperative outcomes. A multivariable logistic regression model was used for data analysis, adjusting for clinically relevant covariates. RESULTS: We identified 2397 patients who underwent AAA repair between 2012 and 2015, of which 135 patients (5.6%) had ischemic colitis. After applying the appropriate exclusion criteria, there were 672 patients who were included in our study. This cohort was divided into two groups: 35 patients with IMA-R and 637 patients with IMA ligation. There were no major differences in preoperative comorbidities between the two groups. IMA-R was associated with increased mean operative time (319.7 ± 117.8 minutes vs 242.4 ± 109.3 minutes; P < .001). Examination of 30-day outcomes revealed patients with IMA-R had a higher rate of return to the operating room (20.0% vs 7.2%; P = .006), a higher rate of wound complications (17.1% vs 3.0%; P = .001), and a higher incidence of ischemic colitis (8.6% vs 2.4%; P = .027). There were no significant differences in mortality, pulmonary complications, or renal complications between the two groups. In multivariable analysis, IMA-R was a significant predictor of ischemic colitis and wound complications. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that IMA-R is not associated with protection from ischemic colitis after open AAA repair. The role of IMA-R remains to be identified.

A systemic review and meta-analysis: long-term results of the Bentall versus the David procedure in patients with Marfan syndrome.

This systemic review of the literature and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the current state of the evidence for and against reimplantation of the aortic valve (RAV) versus the composite valve graft (CVG) intervention in patients with Marfan syndrome. Random effects meta-regression was performed across the study arms with logit-transformed proportions of in-hospital deaths as an outcome measure when possible. Results are presented as odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and P-values. Other outcomes are summarized with medians, interquartile ranges (IQR) and ranges and the numbers of patients at risk. Twenty retrospective studies that included a combined 2156 patients with long-term follow-up were identified for analysis after a literature search. The in-hospital mortality rate favoured the RAV procedure with an odds ratio of 0.23 [95% CI 0.09-0.55, P = 0.001]. The survival rate at mid-term for the RAV cohort was 96.7% (CI 94.2-98.5) vs. 86.4% (CI 82.8-89.6) for the CVG group and 93.1% (CI 66.4-100) for the RAV group vs. 82.6% (CI 74.9-89.2) for the CVG group for the long term. Freedom from valve-related reintervention (median percentages) for the long term was 97.6% (CI 90.3-100%) for the RAV procedure and 88.6% (CI 79.1-95.5) for a CVG. This systematic review of the literature stresses the advantages of the RAV procedure in patients with Marfan syndrome in regard to long- and short-term results as the treatment of choice in aortic root surgery. The RAV procedure reduces in-hospital as well as long-term deaths and protects against aortic valve reintervention.

Valve-sparing root replacement for freestanding pulmonary autograft aneurysm after the Ross procedure.

OBJECTIVE: Autograft dilatation is the main long-term complication following the Ross procedure using the freestanding root replacement technique. We reviewed our 25-year experience with the Ross procedure with a special emphasis on valve-sparing reoperations. METHODS: From 1991 to 2016, 153 patients (29.6 ± 16.6 years; 29.4% pediatric) underwent a Ross operation at our institution with implantation of the autograft as freestanding root replacement. The follow-up is 98.7% complete with a mean of 12.2 ± 5.5 years. RESULTS: Mortality at 30-days was 2.0%. Echocardiography documented no or trivial aortic regurgitation in 99.3% of the patients at discharge. Survival probability at 20 years was 85.4%. No case of autograft endocarditis occurred. Autograft deterioration rate was 2.01% per patient-year, and freedom from autograft reoperation was 75.3% at 15 years. A reoperation for autograft aneurysm was required in 35 patients (22.9%) at a mean interval of 11.1 ± 4.6 years after the Ross procedure. A valve-sparing root replacement was performed in 77% of patients, including 10 David and 17 Yacoub procedures with no early mortality. Three patients required prosthetic valve replacement within 2 years after a Yacoub operation. At latest follow-up, 92% of all surviving patients still carry the pulmonary autograft valve. Freedom from autograft valve replacement was 92.1% at 15 years. CONCLUSIONS: Using the David or Yacoub techniques, the autograft valve can be preserved in the majority of patients with root aneurysms after the Ross procedure. Reoperations can be performed with no early mortality, a good functional midterm result, and an acceptable reintervention rate.

Clinical Outcomes of Root Reimplantation and Bentall Procedure: Propensity Score Matching Analysis.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of aortic root replacement (ARR) surgery: Root reimplantation as valve-sparing root replacement (VSR) and the Bentall procedure. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 216 patients who underwent ARR between 1995 and 2013 at Samsung Medical Center. Patients were divided into two groups, depending on the procedure they underwent: Bentall (n = 134) or VSR (n = 82). The mean follow-up duration was 100.9 ± 56.4 months. RESULTS: There were 2 early deaths in the Bentall group and none in the VSR group (p = 0.53). Early morbidities were not different between the groups. Overall mortality was significantly lower in the VSR group (HR = 0.12, p = 0.04). Despite the higher reoperation rate in the VSR group (p = 0.03), major adverse valve-related events (MAVRE) did not differ between the groups (p = 0.28). Bleeding events were significantly higher in the Bentall group during follow-up (10 in Bentall group, 0 in VSR group, p = 0.04). There were 6 thromboembolic events only in the Bentall group (p = 0.11). We performed a propensity score matching analysis comparing the groups (134 Bentall versus 43 VSR). Matched analysis gave similar results, namely, HR = 0.17, p = 0.10 for overall mortality and HR = 1.01, p = 0.99 for MAVRE. CONCLUSIONS: Although there was marginal significance in the propensity matched analysis, it is plausible to anticipate a survival benefit with VSR during long-term follow-up. Despite a higher reoperation for aortic valves, VSR can be a viable option in patients who decline life-long anticoagulation, especially the young or the patients in whom anticoagulation is contraindicated.

Reimplantation of the upper lobe bronchus after lower sleeve lobectomy or bilobectomy: long-term results.

OBJECTIVES: The advantages of a bronchial sleeve resection are well established. A clear majority of reported cases are of upper lobe sleeve resection. Reimplantation of the upper lobe bronchus after a lower sleeve lobectomy or bilobectomy (the so-called Y-sleeve resection) is infrequent. Related technical peculiarities are the main issues. We present our experience and results in this setting. METHODS: Between 1989 and 2015, we performed 28 Y-sleeve resections of the left lower lobe (n = 18) or right middle and lower lobes (n = 10). The lung-sparing reconstructive operation was performed for non-small-cell lung cancer in 23 cases, for bronchial carcinoid tumour in 4 cases and for a cystic adenoid carcinoma in 1 case. Anastomotic reconstruction was performed by interrupted 4-0 absorbable sutures (monofilament material). RESULTS: All the resections were complete (R0). Postoperative mortality was 3.6%. The rate of major complications was 10.7% (1 myocardial infarction, 1 anastomotic stenosis requiring dilatation and 1 anastomotic fistula). Among the 23 patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (18 men and 5 women; mean age 58 ± 12 years), 8 were Stage I, 9 were Stage II and 6 were Stage IIIa. At a mean follow-up of 46 months, the recurrence rate was 32%. There were 2 loco-regional recurrences. No endobronchial or perianastomotic recurrence occurred. The 3- and 5-year overall and disease-free survival rates of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer were 76.3% and 55.1% and 68.7% and 62.9%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A Y-sleeve resection with reimplantation of the upper load bronchus is a technically feasible and oncologically adequate operation.

Survival and reoperation pattern after 20 years of experience with aortic valve-sparing root replacement in patients with tricuspid and bicuspid valves.

OBJECTIVE: Remodeling or reimplantation are established operative techniques of aortic valve-sparing root replacement. Long-term follow-up is necessary comparing tricuspid and bicuspid aortic valves. METHODS: A total of 315 patients (tricuspid, n = 225, bicuspid, n = 89, quadricuspid, n = 1; remodeling, n = 101, reimplantation, n = 214) were evaluated. Mean follow-up was 10.1 ± 5.6 and 6.4 ± 4.2 years for the remodeling and reimplantation group, respectively. Longest follow-up was 21.9 years with 99.2% completeness. Mean age of the patients was 55.9 ± 14.3 for the remodeling group and 48.9 ± 14.5 years for the reimplantation group. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in survival between the remodeling and reimplantation group (P = .11). Survival was comparable with the normal population in the reimplantation group (P = .33). Risk factors for late death were age, diabetes, and a greater New York Heart Association classification. Cumulative incidence of reoperation at 10 years was 5.8% for the reimplantation and 11.7% for the remodeling group (P = .65). Overall, there was no difference in the cumulative incidence of reoperation between tricuspid and bicuspid aortic valve patients (P = .13); however, a landmark analysis showed that in the second decade, the cumulative incidence of reoperation was greater in bicuspid aortic valve patients (P < .001). A total of 10 of 11 reoperated bicuspid aortic valves were degenerated. CONCLUSIONS: The remodeling and reimplantation aortic valve-sparing root replacement techniques provided excellent long-term survival. Although the number of patients was relatively small, we provide some hints that in the second decade after the operation, especially in bicuspid aortic valve patients, the risk of reoperation may be increased, needing further evaluation.

Does aortic valve repair in valve-sparing aortic root reconstruction compromise the longevity of the procedure?

OBJECTIVES:: The effect of performing aortic valve repair in combination with valve-sparing operation on the length of time for which patients are free from reoperation is unclear. The objective of this study was to determine if the performance of aortic valve repair during valve-sparing operation modified the freedom from reoperation time. METHODS:: From January 2003 to July 2014, 78 patients with a mean age of 49±15 years underwent valve-sparing operation. Sixty-eight percent of these patients were male. Twenty-two (28%) aortic valve repair procedures were performed in this patient population. In the aortic valve repair + valve-sparing operation group, 77.3% of patients had moderate/severe aortic insufficiency, while in the valve-sparing operation group, 58.6% of patients had moderate/severe aortic insufficiency (ns = not significant). Additionally, 13.6% of patients in the aortic valve repair + valve-sparing operation group had functional class III/IV, while 14.2% of patients in the valve-sparing operation group had functional class III/IV (ns). RESULTS:: The in-hospital and late mortality rates, for the aortic valve repair + valve-sparing operation and valve-sparing operation groups were similar, as they were 4.5% and 3.6%; and 0% and 1.8%, respectively. In the aortic valve repair + valve-sparing operation group, 0% of patients presented moderate/severe aortic insufficiency during late follow-up, while in the valve-sparing operation group, 14.2% of patients presented with moderate/severe aortic insufficiency during this period (ns). In the aortic valve repair + valve-sparing operation group, 5.3% of patients presented with functional class III/IV, while in the valve-sparing operation group, 4.2% of patients presented with functional class III/IV (ns). In the aortic valve repair + valve-sparing operation group, 0% of patients required reoperation, while in the valve-sparing operation group, 3.6% of patients required reoperation over a mean follow-up period of 1621±1156 days (75 patients). CONCLUSION:: Valve-sparing operation is a safe and long-lasting procedure and performance of aortic valve repair when necessary does not increase risk of reoperation on the aortic valve.

Does aortic valve repair in valve-sparing aortic root reconstruction compromise the longevity of the procedure?

OBJECTIVES: The effect of performing aortic valve repair in combination with valve-sparing operation on the length of time for which patients are free from reoperation is unclear. The objective of this study was to determine if the performance of aortic valve repair during valve-sparing operation modified the freedom from reoperation time. METHODS: From January 2003 to July 2014, 78 patients with a mean age of 49±15 years underwent valve-sparing operation. Sixty-eight percent of these patients were male. Twenty-two (28%) aortic valve repair procedures were performed in this patient population. In the aortic valve repair + valve-sparing operation group, 77.3% of patients had moderate/severe aortic insufficiency, while in the valve-sparing operation group, 58.6% of patients had moderate/severe aortic insufficiency (ns = not significant). Additionally, 13.6% of patients in the aortic valve repair + valve-sparing operation group had functional class III/IV, while 14.2% of patients in the valve-sparing operation group had functional class III/IV (ns). RESULTS: The in-hospital and late mortality rates, for the aortic valve repair + valve-sparing operation and valve-sparing operation groups were similar, as they were 4.5% and 3.6%; and 0% and 1.8%, respectively. In the aortic valve repair + valve-sparing operation group, 0% of patients presented moderate/severe aortic insufficiency during late follow-up, while in the valve-sparing operation group, 14.2% of patients presented with moderate/severe aortic insufficiency during this period (ns). In the aortic valve repair + valve-sparing operation group, 5.3% of patients presented with functional class III/IV, while in the valve-sparing operation group, 4.2% of patients presented with functional class III/IV (ns). In the aortic valve repair + valve-sparing operation group, 0% of patients required reoperation, while in the valve-sparing operation group, 3.6% of patients required reoperation over a mean follow-up period of 1621±1156 days (75 patients). CONCLUSION: Valve-sparing operation is a safe and long-lasting procedure and performance of aortic valve repair when necessary does not increase risk of reoperation on the aortic valve.

The effect of intercostal artery reimplantation on spinal cord injury in thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm surgery.

OBJECTIVE: Intercostal artery (ICA) reimplantation (ICAR) is thought to decrease spinal cord injury (SCI) in thoracic aortic aneurysm and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA) surgery. Patients treated from 1989 to 2005 without ICAR were compared with those treated from 2005 to 2013 with ICAR to determine whether ICAR reduced SCI. We hypothesized that ICAR would reduce SCI, especially in the highest-risk patients. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis using a prospectively maintained Investigational Review Board-approved database from a university tertiary referral center. The analysis included all patients (n = 805) undergoing thoracic aortic aneurysm and TAAA surgery from 1989 to 2013. The main outcome measure was any transient or permanent paraplegia or paraparesis (SCI). From 1989 to 2004, ICAR was not performed in patients, and open ICAs were ligated; from 2005 to 2013, open ICAs at T7 to L2 were reimplanted in patients with Crawford type I, II, and III TAAAs. Surgical technique was cross clamp without assisted circulation. Anesthetic management was the same from 1989 to 2013. Demographic, intraoperative, and outcome variables were assessed by univariate and multivariate analysis. Observed/expected ratios for paralysis were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 540 patients had surgery before 2005, and 265 had surgery after 2005, when ICAR was begun. There were 275 type I, II, and III TAAAs before 2005 and 164 after 2005. Aneurysm extent, acuity, SCI, mortality, renal failure, and pulmonary failure were the same in patients treated before and after 2005. Multivariate modeling of all patients showed type II TAAA (P = .0001), dissection (P = .00015), and age as a continuous variable (P = .0085) were significant for SCI. Comparing only type I, II, and III TAAAs, there was no difference in SCI between those with ICAR after 2005 and those without ICAR before 2005 (5.1% vs 8.8%; P = .152). In a subanalysis of the highest-risk patients (type II, dissection, acute), ICAR was not significant (P = .27). Observed/expected ratios ratios were 0.23 before 2005 and 0.16 after 2005 (χ2 = .796; P = .37). CONCLUSIONS: Although there was a small decrease in SCI with ICAR, reattaching ICAs did not produce a statistically significant reduction in SCI, even in the highest-risk patients.

Survival and freedom from aortic valve-related reoperation after valve-sparing aortic root replacement in 1015 patients.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to characterize mortality and aortic valve replacement after valve-sparing aortic root replacement (V-SARR) in a multicentre cohort. METHODS: Between 1994 and 2014, 1015 patients had V-SARR with (n = 288, 28%) or without cusp/commissure repair (n = 727, 72%) at the centres of Lübeck (n = 343, 34%), Stuttgart (n = 346, 34%), Hamburg (n = 109, 11%) and Freiburg (n = 217, 21%), Germany. Comparative survival of an age- and gender-matched general population was calculated. Log-rank tests and multiple logistic regression were used to identify risk factors. RESULTS: The mean follow-up was 5.2 ± 3.9 years. Cumulative follow-up comprised 2933 patient-years. Early survival was 98%. NYHA status and aneurysm size were predictive of death during mid-term follow-up (P = 0.025). Freedom from aortic valve replacement was 90% at 8 years, with the type of V-SARR (root remodelling, David II) being a risk factor (P = 0.015). Bicuspid aortic valve (P = 0.26) and initial valve function (P = 0.4) did not impact reoperation. The need of additional valve repair (cusps/commissures) was not linked to reoperation: freedom from aortic valve replacement at 8 years was 84% if cusp repair was performed versus 90% if V-SARR alone was performed (P = 0.218). Marfan syndrome had no impact on survival or on aortic valve replacement. CONCLUSIONS: Mid-term survival of patients after V-SARR is comparable with that of a matched general population. The regurgitant bicuspid aortic valve is a favourable substrate for V-SARR. Prophylactic surgery should be performed before symptoms or large aneurysms are present to achieve optimal mid-term outcomes.