Transcatheter aortic valve implantation for pure aortic insufficiency in a patient following David-type aortic valve-sparing root replacement after aortic dissection-A successful off-label procedure.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has traditionally been indicated for the treatment of aortic stenosis. However, in this case report, we describe a successful TAVI procedure in a 46-year-old male patient who had previously undergone David aortic valve-sparing aortic root replacement for type 1 aortic dissection. The patient presented with aortic valve insufficiency 4 years after the initial surgery and was subsequently treated with a 34 mm Medtronic CoreValve Evolut R prosthesis via TAVI. This case highlights the feasibility of TAVI as a viable treatment option for postoperative aortic valve insufficiency in patients with prior ascending aortic or aortic arch surgery.

Impact of valve-sparing aortic root replacement on aortic fluid dynamics and biomechanics in patients with syndromic heritable thoracic aortic disease.

OBJECTIVES: Patients with syndromic heritable thoracic aortic diseases (sHTAD) who underwent prophylactic aortic root replacement are at high risk of distal aortic events, but the underlying mechanisms are poorly understood. This prospective, longitudinal study aims to assess the impact of valve-sparing aortic root replacement (VSARR) on aortic fluid dynamics and biomechanics in these patients, and to examine whether they present altered haemodynamics or biomechanics prior to surgery compared to sHTAD patients with no indication for surgery (sHTAD-NSx) and healthy volunteers (HV). METHODS: Sixteen patients with Marfan or Loeys-Dietz syndrome underwent two 4D flow CMR studies before (sHTAD-preSx) and after VSARR (sHTAD-postSx). Two age, sex and BSA matched cohorts of 40 HV and 16 sHTAD-NSx patients with available 4D flow CMR, were selected for comparison. In-plane rotational flow (IRF), systolic flow reversal ratio (SFRR), wall shear stress (WSS), pulse wave velocity (PWV) and aortic strain were analysed in the ascending (AscAo) and descending aorta (DescAo). RESULTS: All patients with sHTAD presented altered haemodynamics and increased aortic stiffness (p<0.05) compared to HV, both in the AscAo (median PWV 7.4 in sHTAD-NSx; 6.8 in sHTAD-preSx; 4.9m/s in HV) and DescAo (median PWV 9.1 in sHTAD-NSx; 8.1 in sHTAD-preSx; 6.3m/s in HV). Patients awaiting VSARR had markedly reduced in-plane (median IRF -2.2 vs 10.4 cm2/s in HV, p=0.001), but increased through-plane flow rotation (median SFRR 7.8 vs 3.8% in HV, p=0.002), and decreased WSS (0.36 vs 0.47N/m2 in HV, p=0.004) in the proximal DescAo. After VSARR, proximal DescAo in-plane rotational flow (p=0.010) and circumferential WSS increased (p=0.011), no longer differing from HV, but through-plane rotational flow, axial WSS and stiffness remained altered. Patients in which aortic tortuosity was reduced after surgery showed greater post-surgical increase in IRF compared to those in which tortuosity increased (median IRF increase 18.1 vs 3.3cm²/s, p=0.047). Most AscAo flow alterations were restored to physiological values after VSARR. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with sHTAD, VSARR partially restores downstream fluid dynamics to physiological levels. However, some flow disturbances and increased stiffness persist in the proximal DescAo. Further longitudinal studies are needed to evaluate whether persistent alterations contribute to post-surgical risk.

The Clinical Significance of Unplanned Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Aortic Root Replacement.

OBJECTIVES: Unexpected coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is occasionally required during aortic root replacement (ARR). However, the impact of unplanned CABG remains unknown. DESIGN: A single-center, retrospective observational study. SETTING: At university-affiliated tertiary hospital. PARTICIPANTS: All patients who underwent ARR from 2011 through 2022. INTERVENTIONS: Aortic root replacement with or without unplanned CABG. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 795 patients underwent ARR. Among them, 131 (16.5%) underwent planned concomitant CABG, and 34 (4.3%) required unplanned CABG. The most common indication of unplanned CABG was ventricular dysfunction (33.3%), followed by disease pathology (25.6%), anatomy (15.4%), and surgical complications (10.3%). A vein graft to the right coronary artery was the most commonly performed bypass. Infective endocarditis and aortic dissection were observed in 27.8% and 12.8%, respectively. Prior cardiac surgery was seen in 40.3%. The median follow-up period was 4.3 years. Unplanned CABG was not associated with operative mortality (odds ratio [OR] 1.54, 95% CI 0.33-7.16, p = 0.58) or long-term mortality (hazard ratio 0.91, 95% CI 0.44-1.89, p = 0.81). Body surface area smaller than 1.7 was independently associated with an increased risk of unplanned CABG (OR 4.51, 95% CI 1.85-11.0, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Unplanned CABG occurred in 4.3% of patients during ARR, but was not associated with operative mortality or long-term mortality. A small body surface area was a factor associated with unplanned CABG.

The mid-term outcomes of aortic root replacement after surgical repair for CHD.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to assess the mid-term outcomes of aortic root replacement after repair of CHDs. METHOD: This is a single-institutional retrospective, cohort study with consecutive patients undergoing aortic root replacement after surgical repair of CHDs between 1999 and 2022. Operative indications included aortic root dilatation with/without aortic insufficiency, sinus of Valsalva rupture, or aortic dissection involving the root. RESULTS: Forty-four patients (36 male and 8 female) were enrolled. Mean age at the root replacement was 36.6 ± 11.9 years. The most frequent primary diagnosis was congenital aortic stenosis (n = 10) and ventricular septal defect (n = 10). Mean time from the surgical repair to aortic root replacement was 26.6 ± 13.0 years. Operative indications were aortic root enlargement with or without aortic valve aetiology (n = 40), sinus of Valsalva rupture (n = 2), and aortic dissection (n = 2). Forty-two patients underwent valve-replacing aortic root replacement, and two patients underwent valve-sparing, with 40 concomitant procedures. The median follow-up was 3.5 (1.3-7.6) years. There were one early and five late mortalities and five cardiovascular-related reoperations. Actuarial survival at 5-10 years after root replacement was 81.0 ± 6.6%. The cumulative incidence of cardiovascular-related reoperation and aortic root or valve-related reoperation at 5 years after root replacement was 11.9% and 5.6%, respectively. CONCLUSION: The early and mid-term outcomes of aortic root replacement for patients with a history of repair of CHDs were favourable in terms of survival and aortic root or valve-related reoperation.

Effect of minimally invasive versus conventional aortic root replacement on transfusion and postoperative wound complications in patients: A meta-analysis.

We examined whether small incision aortic root replacement could reduce the amount of blood transfusion during operation and the risk of postoperative complications. An extensive e-review of the 4 main databases (PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science and EMBASE) was carried out to determine all the published trials by July 2023. The search terms used were associated with partial versus full sternotomy and aortic root. This analysis only included the study articles that compared partial and full sternotomy. After excluding articles based on titles or abstracts, selected full-text articles had reference lists searched for any potential further articles. We analysed a total of 2167 subjects from 10 comparable trials. The minimally invasive aortic root graft in breastbone decreased the duration of hospitalization (MD, -2.58; 95% CI, -3.15, -2.01, p < 0.0001) and intraoperative red blood cell transfusion (MD, -1.27; 95% CI, -2.34, -0.19, p = 0.02). However, there were no significant differences in wound infection (OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.16, 4.93, p = 0.88), re-exploration for bleeding (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.60, 1.53, p = 0.86), intraoperative blood loss (MD, -259.19; 95% CI, -615.11, 96.73, p = 0.15) and operative time (MD, -7.39; 95% CI, -19.10, 4.32, p = 0.22); the results showed that the microsternotomy did not differ significantly from that of the routine approach. Small sternotomy may be an effective and safe substitute for the treatment of the aorta root. Nevertheless, the wide variety of data indicates that larger, well-designed studies are required to back up the current limited literature evidence showing a benefit in terms of complications like postoperative wound infections or the volume of intraoperative red blood cell transfusion.

Virtual Reality Computed Tomography Evaluation　- Anatomy and Clinical Implications for Valve-Sparing Aortic Root Replacement.

BACKGROUND: Three-dimensional aortic root evaluation using virtual reality (VR) techniques for valve-sparing aortic root replacement (VSARR) preparation has not yet been implemented, so we demonstrated VR computed tomography (VR-CT) and assessed its utility for VSARR.Methods and Results: We enrolled 72 patients who underwent multidetector CT before elective VSARR for annuloaortic ectasia with tricuspid aortic valve. The geometries of their aortic roots were measured with a VR-CT workstation. The mean values of geometric height (GH), free margin length (FML), and commissural height (CH) were 17.2±2.4 mm, 36.0±5.2 mm, and 24.0±4.3 mm, respectively. The right coronary/noncoronary CH was significantly greater than the left coronary/right coronary and left coronary/noncoronary CH. The left coronary cusp had the shortest FML, intercommissural distances (ICD), and smallest central angle. Although the right coronary cusp had the largest values for FML, ICD, and central angle, the right coronary cusp had the lowest GH and EH. The VR-CT measurements strongly correlated with intraoperative alternatives, especially with mean GH (R2=0.75) and left coronary/noncoronary CH (R2=0.79). Furthermore, mean GH was observed to be significantly different among the selected graft size groups; therefore, the preoperative mean GH could play a significant role in graft sizing. CONCLUSIONS: VR-CT evaluation allows a thorough understanding of aortic root anatomy, which could facilitate VSAAR.

Comparison of outcomes between aortic root replacement and supra-coronary interposition graft for type A aortic dissection: A retrospective case series.

BACKGROUND: The decision to conserve or replace the native aortic valve following acute type-A aortic dissection (ATAAD) is an area of cardiac surgery without standardized practice. This single-center retrospective study analysed the long-term performance of the native aortic valve and root following surgery for ATAAD. METHODS: Between 2009 and 2018 all cases ATAAD treated at Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Foundation Trust were analysed. Patients were divided into two groups: (a) ascending aorta (interposition) graft (AAG) without valve replacement and (b) nonvalve-sparing aortic root replacement (ARR). Preoperative covariates were compared, as well as operative characteristics and postoperative complications. Long-term survival and echocardiographic outcomes were analysed using regression analysis. RESULTS: In total, 116 patients were included: 63 patients in the AAG group and 53 patients in the ARR group. In patients where the native aortic valve was conserved, nine developed severe aortic regurgitation and two patients developed dilation of the aortic root requiring subsequent replacement during the follow-up period. Aortic regurgitation at presentation was not found to be associated with subsequent risk of developing severe aortic regurgitation or reintervention on the aortic valve. Overall mortality was observed to be significantly lower in patients undergoing AAG (17.5% vs. 41.5%, p = .004). CONCLUSIONS: With careful patient selection, the native aortic root shows good long-term durability both in terms of valve competence and stable root dimensions after surgery for ATAAD. This study supports the consideration of conservation of the aortic valve during emergency surgery for type-A dissection, in the absence of a definitive indication for root replacement, including in cases where aortic regurgitation complicates the presentation.

Alport syndrome: A case study of chronic type A aortic dissection.

A 39-year-old woman with a history of Alport syndrome was admitted to our hospital for heart failure due to severe aortic regurgitation. Computed tomography revealed a chronic type A aortic dissection that required valve-sparing aortic root replacement. The pathological examination demonstrated that elastic fibers in the tunica media of the aortic wall are torn and severely disorganized. Immunostaining showed fragmented alpha 5 chains, indicating Alport syndrome. These findings imply Alport syndrome may have connective tissue vulnerability, rendering patients susceptible to the development of aortic disease at a young age.

Progression of aortic root based on long-term imaging studies after acute type A dissection repair.

BACKGROUND: To determine the progression of aortic root in acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) patients after aortic root repair (ARr) or replacement (ARR) based on long-term follow-up imaging studies. METHODS: From 1996 to 2019, 732 patients had ATAAD repair at our institution. Six hundred and seven of these patients had either ARr, (n = 383) or ARR (n = 224). Eighty-one patients were excluded due to a lack of postoperative imaging. Three hundred and thirty-two patients were included in the repair group and 194 patients in the replacement group for long-term follow-up imaging study. RESULTS: Compared to the ARR group, the ARr group was significantly older (60 years vs. 55 years) and had more patients with hypertension (79% vs. 63%) but less male patients (63% vs. 79%) and connective tissue disorder (1.8% vs 8%). The ARr group had more zone two arch replacement (22% vs. 11%), similar HCA time (35 min vs. 31 min), shorter cardiopulmonary bypass time (203 min vs. 266 min), aortic cross-clamp time (128 min vs. 214 min), and fewer concomitant coronary artery bypass (3.9% vs. 8.9%). The root growth rate over 12 years was similar between the repair and replacement group (0.20 mm/year vs. 0.18 mm/year, p = .75). Both the repair and replacement group had similar 15-year cumulative incidence of reoperation (6.9% vs. 5.9%; p = .67), operative mortality (7.8% vs. 8.5%; p = .78), and 15-year survival (51% vs. 52%; p = .40). CONCLUSIONS: There was minimal growth of the aortic root after root repair or replacement for ATAAD patients. Both aortic root repair and replacement were acceptable techniques for ATAAD surgery in select patients.

Aortic root replacement in severe left ventricular dysfunction: The added value of beating-heart surgery.

There are limits to the use of cardioplegic arrest during complex cardiac surgical procedures, especially in patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction. In the current report, we graphically present the detailed surgical strategy and technique for beating-heart aortic root replacement with concomitant coronary bypass grafting, for patients otherwise deemed inoperable. With support of cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB), beating-heart bypass surgery is realized, after which the bypass grafts can selectively be connected to the CPB, preserving coronary flow. Then, on the beating and perfused heart, a complex procedure such as aortic root replacement can be performed, without jeopardizing postoperative cardiac function. However, several important caveats and remarks regarding the use of beating-heart surgery should be considered, including: coronary perfusion verification and maintenance, temperature management, and prevention of air embolisms. By use of this strategy, risks associated with cardioplegic arrest are minimized, while it circumvents the potential need for long-term postoperative extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

The impact of concomitant mitral valve intervention on outcomes of aortic root replacement.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of concomitant mitral valve repair (MVr) or replacement (MVR) at the time of aortic root replacement (ARR). METHODS: We queried our aortic database for consecutive patients undergoing ARR in combination with MVr or MVR from 1997 to 2021. Patients undergoing valve sparing root replacement (VSRR) were excluded. We compared operative mortality (OM) and a composite of major adverse events (MAE) in those undergoing CVG both with (Group 2) and without a concomitant MV procedure (Group 1). We also analyzed outcomes between patients undergoing MV repair versus MV replacement. RESULTS: Sixty-one patients underwent ARR with concomitant MVr (29/47.5%) or MVR (32/52.5%). Compared to patients in Group 2 (n = 955), those in Group 1 presented with worse NYHA class, lower ejection fraction, higher rate of connective tissue disease, and underwent more frequently urgent/emergent procedures. Group 1 had higher incidence of postoperative MAE (8/61(13%) vs 51/955(5%), p = .03). There was no difference in operative mortality between the two groups (0/61(0%) vs. 3/955(0.3%), p = 1). Compared to the ARR + MVR subgroup, the ARR + MVr subgroup had higher incidence of postoperative MAE (5/29(17.2%) vs. 3/32(9.4%), p = 0.02). Multivariate analysis identified MVr (OR 2.78, 95% confidence interval [CI] [1.03;7.48], p = 0.04) as an independent predictor of MAE. CONCLUSIONS: Operative mortality remained low in both groups. The addition of MVR/MVr to composite valve-graft replacement of the aortic root does not increase OM in experienced hands. The incidence of MAEs was higher in those undergoing MVr but may be a reflection of greater preoperative comorbidity rather than issues related to a more complex operation.

Surgical outcomes and optimal approach to treatment of aortic valve endocarditis with aortic root abscess.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of aortic root abscess (ARA) on the postoperative outcomes of surgically managed infective endocarditis (IE) and to inform optimal surgical approach. METHODS: Between 2009 and 2020, 143 consecutive patients who underwent surgical management for aortic-valve IE were included in a retrospective cohort study. Multivariable and propensity-weighted analyses were used to adjust for demographic imbalances between those without (n = 93; NARA) and with an ARA (n = 50). Additionally, empirical subgroup analysis appraised the two most used surgical techniques; patch reconstruction (PR) and aortic root replacement (ARR). RESULTS: Demographic characteristics were similar between ARA and NARA except for logistic EuroSCORE, previous valve surgery, and multivalvular infection. In-hospital mortality was 8% and 12% in NARA and ARA, respectively (p = .38), with mortality rates consistently nonsignificantly higher in ARA across all time periods. The overall reoperation rate was also higher in ARA (27% vs. 14%; p = .09) and ARA was shown to be associated with late reoperation (odds ratio [OR] = 2.74; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.18-6.36). Patients treated with an ARR showed a 16% increase in late mortality when compared with PR (40% vs. 24%; p = .27) and a 17% lower reoperation rate (14% vs. 31%; p = .24). Propensity-weighted analysis identified ARR as a significant protective factor for reoperation (hazard ratio = 0.05; 95% CI = 0.01-0.34). CONCLUSIONS: The presence of an ARA in aortic valve endocarditis was not associated with significantly higher early and late mortality but is linked with a higher reoperation rate at our institution. ARR in ARA is protective from reoperation so should be considered best practice in this setting.

Valve-sparing versus valve-replacing aortic root replacement in patients with aortic root aneurysm.

BACKGROUND: Valve-sparing aortic root replacement (VSARR) is an alternative to valve-replacing aortic root replacement (VRARR) with valved-conduits based on recent guidelines for clinical practice. This study investigated outcomes of these two procedures in patients with nonstenotic valves. METHODS: Between January 7, 2007 and June 30, 2019, 475 patients with aortic root aneurysm without aortic stenosis underwent VSARR (151) or VRARR (324) techniques. Propensity score-matching (PSM) was used to alleviate confounding. Endpoints were 30-day mortality, 8-year survival and reoperation, aortic regurgitation, and valve gradients. RESULTS: PSM created 69 pairs of patients with a mean age 52 ± 13 years (10.1% Marfan syndrome, 34.8% bicuspid aortic valve). There was no statistically significant difference in major perioperative morbidity or 30-day mortality (0% VSARR vs. 1.4% VRARR; p = 0.316). Overall survival was significantly higher (p = 0.025) in the VSARR group versus the VRARR group (8-year estimates 100% vs. 88.9%, respectively), while freedom from valve reoperation was similar (p = 0.97, 8-year estimates 90.9% vs. 96.7%, respectively). Freedom from > moderate-severe AR was not significantly different (p = 0.08, 8-year estimates 90.0% VSARR group vs. 100% VRARR), but mean valve gradients at last follow-up were better in the VSARR group (5.9 vs. 13.2 mmHg, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: VSARR is a safe operation in patients with aortic root aneurysm and nonstenotic aortic valves in the hands of experienced surgeons. Freedom from reoperation is similar and the mode of aortic valve failure differs between the two groups.

Current trends in minimally invasive valve-sparing aortic root replacement-Best available evidence.

BACKGROUND: Valve-sparing aortic root replacement such as the reimplantation (David) procedure is becoming increasingly popular. Despite the fact that the procedure is technically more complex, long-term studies demonstrated that excellent clinical outcomes in selected patients with durable repair are achievable. Benefits of minimal access cardiac surgery have stimulated enthusiasm in the use of this access for valve-sparing aortic root replacement. METHODS: We have reviewed available literature on the topic of valve-sparing aortic root replacement (David procedure) via minimally invasive access through upper hemisternotomy in an attempt to assess current trends and to recognize potential advantages of this technique. Patient selection and preoperative work-up play important role in performing minimally invasive David procedure safely. Surgical technique corresponds to the standard David procedure, with a few exceptions related to the minimal access, and is performed via upper ministernotomy. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Evidence from nonrandomized observational and comparative studies demonstrated excellent clinical outcomes of minimally invasive David procedure in selected patients with comparable perioperative mortality and outcomes to the conventional technique. To date, David procedure with a minimal access technique has been performed in carefully selected patients. We believe it could be particularly beneficial to provide younger patients (Marfan syndrome and bicuspid aortic valve) with minimally invasive David procedure as it can allow faster recovery with improved cosmesis with excellent outcomes. A decision to perform minimally invasive David procedure should be individualized to each patient and based on the experience of the team. Further large prospective randomized studies with long-term follow-up are still needed to confirm durability of minimal access technique.

Surgical outcomes and optimal approach to treatment of aortic valve endocarditis with aortic root abscess - systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Data on the postoperative outcomes for patients with infective endocarditis complicated by an aortic root abscess is sparse due to the condition's low incidence and high mortality rates. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate existing data on the impact of aortic root abscesses on the postoperative outcomes and to inform optimal surgical approach. METHODS: The online databases MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane library were searched from 1990 to 2022 for studies comparing cohorts of surgically managed infective endocarditis patients with and without an aortic root abscess. Data was extracted by two independent investigators and aggregated in a random-effects model. Risk of bias was assessed using an adapted version of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. RESULTS: Six clinical studies were included in the meta-analysis (n 1982). The abscess group was associated with increased in-hospital mortality (OR 1.74 95%: CI 1.18-2.56) and late mortality (HR 1.27 95% CI:1.03-1.58). The reoperation meta-analysis was complicated by high rates of heterogeneity (I2 = 59%) and found no significant differences in reoperation between abscess and no abscess groups (HR=1.48: 95% CI:0.92-2.40). Post-hoc scatter graph showed a strong linear relationship (r 0.998), suggesting hospitals with higher rates of aortic root replacement achieve lower rates of reoperation for aortic root abscess patients compared with patch reconstruction. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of an aortic root abscess in aortic valve endocarditis is associated with elevated early and late mortality despite modern standards of care. Additionally, aortic root replacement should be considered to have a favourable postoperative profile for use in this context.

Fifteen-Year Outcomes Following Valve-Sparing Aortic Root Replacement in Elderly Patients.

BACKGROUND: Valve-sparing aortic root replacement (VSRR) techniques have several advantages such as preservation of physiological haemodynamics of the native aortic valve and avoidance of prosthetic valve-related complications. However, VSRR procedures are generally performed in young patients and the long-term results in elderly patients (≥65 years) are scarce. METHODS: Fifty-six (56) consecutive patients underwent VSRR surgery by a single surgeon at the current centre between January 2006 and December 2013; a modified "remodelling technique" was typically performed. The mean age was 58.86±12.5 years; Marfan syndrome and bicuspid aortic valve were both present in six patients (10.7%); 38 patients (67.8%) presented with greater than moderate aortic regurgitation; and 17 patients (30.4%) were in New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III before surgery. They were divided into two groups according to their ages receiving VSRR surgery: Group E (elderly patients aged ≥65 years, n=24) and Group Y (young patients aged <65 years, n=32). The primary outcomes were aortic valve-related reoperation, cardiovascular reoperation, all-cause mortality, and functional status. RESULTS: One (1) patient in Group E was converted to aortic valve replacement as a result of a failed aortic valve repair. No perioperative mortality was observed. The mean follow-up was 11.5±2.9 years. Aortic valve-related reoperation was noted in two patients of each group (one with endocarditis, one with severe aortic regurgitation). Cardiovascular reoperations were observed in three and six patients, and all-cause deaths in seven and two patients in Group E and Group Y, respectively. The 10-year freedom from aortic valve-related reoperation was estimated to be 91.7±5.6% and 92.7±5.0% (p=0.594), the 10-year freedom from cardiovascular reoperation was 86.4±7.3% and 81.1±7.7% (p=0.781), and the cumulative 10-year survival rates were 74.0±9.2% and 93.8±4.3% (p=0.018) in Group E and Group Y, respectively. During follow-up, 6.7% of patients were in NYHA class III and 6.4% of patients developed moderate-to-severe aortic regurgitation. Cox regression analysis failed to identify predictors for primary outcomes. CONCLUSION: Valve-sparing aortic root replacement can safely be performed in elderly patients with low early mortality and satisfactory long-term freedom from aortic valve-related and cardiovascular re-intervention.

Fifteen-Year Outcomes After Valve-Sparing Aortic Root Remodelling or Exclusion of the Non-Coronary Sinus: When to Preserve the Sinuses of Valsalva?

BACKGROUND: Isolated exclusion of the non-coronary sinus (NCS) is an attractive strategy in valve-sparing aortic root surgery, which avoids the mobilisation and re-implantation of coronary ostia. However, the long-term durability of aortic valve repair and the fate of remnant sinuses of Valsalva remain unclear. METHOD: From January 2006 to December 2013, 29 patients underwent replacement of the ascending aorta extending to the NCS (group NCS) and 56 patients underwent a modified Yacoub procedure (group MY) in our centre by a single surgeon. Significant difference of preoperative parameters was observed between two groups in the presence of bicuspid aortic valve (41.4% vs 12.5%, p=0.002) and the diameter of the sinus of Valsalva (47.3±4.7 mm vs 51.5±4.9 mm, p=0.01). RESULTS: The group NCS, as compared to the group MY, was associated with significantly shorter cardiopulmonary bypass time (106.6±40.5 min vs 138.4±37.5 min, p=0.001) and aortic cross clamping time (69.0±21.8 min vs 105.4±27.8 min, p<0.01). The mean follow-up was 11.5±2.8 years. No surgical re-intervention was performed for aortopathies of the aortic root; the neo-sinus were not dilated in either groups (38.2±4.2 mm vs 34.0±4.0 mm, p<0.01). The 10-year freedom from aortic valve-related re-operation was estimated to be 96.6±3.4% and 94.5±3.1% (p=0.58), and the cumulative 10-year survival rates were 95.2±4.6% and 85.6±4.7% (p=0.61) in the group NCS and the group MY, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Aortic valve-sparing isolated NCS replacement can be safely performed in selected patients; its early outcomes, overall survival and long-term freedom from aortic valve-related or aortopathy-related re-intervention were comparable to those obtained with the Yacoub procedure.

Application of retrograde cerebral perfusion in aortic root replacement combined with right half aortic arch replacement. / é€†è¡Œè„‘çŒæ³¨åœ¨ä¸»åŠ¨è„‰æ ¹éƒ¨å’Œå³åŠå¼“ç½®æ¢æ‰‹æœ¯ä¸­çš„åº”ç”¨.

OBJECTIVES: After cardiac surgery involving the aortic arch, the incidence of neurological complications remains high, therefore it is very important to take measures to protect brain. This study is to investigate the safety and effectiveness of deep hypothermic circulatory arrest and retrograde cerebral perfusion for aortic root combined with right half aortic arch replacement. METHODS: Clinical data of 31 patients, who underwent aortic root and right half aortic arch replacement with deep hypothermic circulatory arrest and retrograde cerebral perfusion in Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, were retrospectively analyzed. This cohort included 23 aortic aneurysms and 8 aortic dissections. Aortic root replacement was conducted in 26 patients by Bentall procedures, and 5 patients by David procedures. Time of deep hypothermic circulatory arrest and retrograde cerebral perfusion in surgery was (21.9±5.2) min. The in-hospital mortality, postoperative neurological dysfunction and other major adverse complications were observed and recorded. RESULTS: No in-hospital death and permanent neurological dysfunction occurred. Two patients had transient neurological dysfunction and 2 patients with aortic dissection requiring long-time ventilation due to hypoxemia, 1 patient underwent resternotomy. During 6-36 months of follow-up, all patients recovered satisfactorily. CONCLUSIONS: Deep hypothermic circulatory arrest and retrograde cerebral perfusion can be safely and effectively applied in aortic root and right half aortic arch replacement, and which can simplify the surgical procedures and be worth of clinical promotion.

Impact of aortic valve disease on outcomes of aortic root replacement.

BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE STUDY: Aortic stenosis (AS) has been associated with higher mortality in patients undergoing aortic root replacement (ARR). In this analysis, we compare the outcomes among patients with moderate to severe AS or aortic insufficiency (AI) undergoing ARR in a tertiary aortic center. METHODS: A total of 889 patients underwent ARR from 1997 to 2020, of whom 798 had AI and 91 had AS. We excluded valve-sparing procedures. The primary endpoint consisted of major adverse events (MAEs), including operative mortality, myocardial infarction, tracheostomy, new dialysis, and cerebrovascular accidents. All patients had either a mechanical or biologic composite valve-graft implanted using button and exclusion techniques. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to compare outcomes. Long-term survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Patients with AI had a higher incidence of connective tissue disorder (8.0% vs. 0.0%; p = .01) and were more likely to be classified as having an urgent or emergent procedure (22.4% vs. 8.8%; p = .004). PSM achieved a good balance between the groups. There was no difference in MAE rates, postoperatively (AI vs. AS, 1.6% vs. 1.6%; p = .85). Long-term survival was similar at 5 years in the matched cohorts (AI vs. AS, 75.9% vs. 95.5%; p = .36). CONCLUSION: In patients undergoing ARR, the presence of moderate to severe AI or AS does not impact operative outcomes. ARR can be carried out with excellent outcomes and low operative mortality when performed in specialized centers.

The impact of surgeon and hospital procedural volume on outcomes after aortic root replacement in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: Surgeon procedural volume for complex cardiac procedures have become important quality metrics. The objective is to determine the association of surgeon and hospital case volume on patient outcomes after an aortic root replacement for aortic root aneurysms. METHODS: From 2009 to 2014, 4629 Medicare patients underwent an aortic root replacement for a root aneurysm. Procedures were performed by 1276 surgeons at 718 hospitals. Patients with endocarditis, aortic rupture, or Type-A dissection were excluded. Procedural volume was defined as mean number of cases performed each year during the study period. The impact of hospital and surgeon volume on adjusted 30-day mortality was analyzed as a continuous variable using adjusted logistic regression with cubic splines. RESULTS: After an aortic root replacement, we observed a nonlinear reduction in the adjusted odds ratio for 30-day mortality as surgeon and hospital volume increased. Surgeons that performed approximately five cases/year and hospitals that completed approximately five cases/year had the greatest reduction in the odds of perioperative death. Patients treated at high-volume hospitals (≥4.5 cases/year) had a lower risk for 30-day postoperative stroke (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.51, p = .008), myocardial infarction (HR = 0.49, p = .016), hemodialysis (HR = 0.44, p = .005), and reoperation (HR = 0.48, p = .003). Additionally, patients treated with high-volume surgeons (≥9 cases/year) had lower risk for stroke (HR = 0.65, p = .005), hemodialysis (HR = 0.65, p = .03), sepsis (HR = 0.62, p = .03), and reoperation (HR = 0.67, p = .004). CONCLUSION: Among Medicare patients undergoing an aortic root replacement, there is a strong inverse relationship between annualized surgeon and hospital case volume and postoperative outcomes. Procedural volume is an important quality metric for this high-risk procedure.