Re-Operative Aortic Arch Surgery in a Contemporary Series.

Re-operative aortic arch operations (REDO) following previous cardiac surgery are challenging procedures associated with significant morbidity and mortality. We investigated post-operative outcomes for patients undergoing REDO and identified risk-factors for mortality in a contemporary series. From 1/2005-6/2018, 365 consecutive patients at an academic center underwent REDO: 257 HEMIARCH and 108 COMPLETE arch (45 stage I elephant trunk, 63 total arch) replacements. Outcomes included mortality and major adverse events. Long-term survival was determined with Kaplan-Meier analysis, and risk-factors for mortality were assessed with Cox proportional hazards regression. Operative mortality for the entire cohort was 6.8%, and rates of stroke, cardiac arrest, and renal failure were 6.0%, 7.4%, and 10.4%. Compared to HEMIARCH, COMPLETE patients had an increased incidence of renal failure requiring dialysis (15.7% vs 8.2%, p = 0.031) and re-exploration for bleeding or delayed chest closure (19.4% vs. 11.7%, p = 0.051). Although operative mortality was similar in both cohorts, long-term follow-up mortality (38.0% vs 26.8%, p = 0.047) was higher among COMPLETE vs. HEMIARCH. Predictors of overall mortality among all-comers undergoing REDO included older age, low body surface area, endocarditis, ejection fraction <30%, emergent status of operation, extended cardiopulmonary bypass duration, intra-aortic balloon pump use, and a more extensive arch operation. Previous aortic surgery was not a risk-factor for mortality. Among all-comers undergoing REDO, survival was 81.4% at 1 year, 66.7% at 5 years, and 56.4% at 10 years of follow-up. While early postoperative outcomes are similar among HEMIARCH and COMPLETE, a more extensive arch-replacement is an independent risk-factor for overall mortality in REDO. Using appropriate clinical indications in the current era, REDO remains a viable option for selected patients.

Fifteen Years of Aortic Valve-sparing Root Replacement and Impact of Eccentric Jets on Late Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Valve-sparing root replacement is more challenging with eccentric aortic insufficiency due to cusp and root asymmetry, which may impact valve durability and survival. This study analyzed the effect of jet eccentricity on long-term outcomes in tricuspid aortic valves (TAVs) and bicuspid aortic valves (BAVs). METHODS: From 2005 to 2019, 111 patients (65 TAVs, 46 BAVs) with >2+ aortic insufficiency underwent valve-sparing root replacement at an academic center. Pre- and postoperative echocardiograms were analyzed. Of these, 32 patients presented with concentric jets (29 TAVs, 3 BAVs) and 71 with eccentric jets (28 TAVs, 43 BAVs). Median follow-up was 49 months (interquartile range, 12-93). Kaplan-Meier analysis and cumulative risk were used to compare long-term survival and valve-related reintervention. RESULTS: Mean patient age was 44 ± 12 years. Compared with TAV, more BAV patients presented with eccentric jets (93.5% vs 43.1%, P < .001). All BAV patients received cusp repair compared with 52.3% of TAV patients (P < .001). At 3, 5, and 10 years the cumulative risk of aortic valve replacement for TAV (4.7%, 6.4%, and 6.4%) versus BAV (5.8%, 7.8%, and 7.8%) patients (P = .87) and concentric (0%, 0%, and 0%) versus eccentric (6.4%, 9.4%, and 9.4%) jets (P = .98) was similar. Overall survival at 10 years was 71% for TAV and 97% for BAV (P = .19) and 86% for concentric and 79% for eccentric jets (P = .17). CONCLUSIONS: In patients presenting for valve-sparing root replacement with >2+ aortic insufficiency the risk of valve-related reintervention long term was low after cusp repair in TAVs and BAVs. Current results suggest preoperative jet eccentricity does not impact long-term survival and valve durability.

Preoperative Eccentric Aortic Regurgitation and Outcomes Following Valve-Sparing Root Replacement.

The David V valve-sparing root replacement (VSRR) is well-established for the treatment of aortic insufficiency (AI) and advanced root aortopathy. The impact of cusp repair in trileaflet aortic valve (TAV) patients, however, with preoperative moderate-severe AI and an eccentric jet is unclear. This study compares outcomes in TAV patients with pre-operative AI >2+ based on jet centricity and cusp repair status. Review of a single institutional database identified 309 consecutive patients undergoing VSRR from 2005 to 2018. Of these, 51 patients had TAV with AI >2+: 25 concentric and 26 eccentric jets. Mean follow-up was 58 (SD = 44) months. Echocardiographic parameters were compared pre- and post-operatively. Kaplan-Meier analysis, longitudinal mixed modeling, and cumulative incidence were used to compare long-term survival, recurrence of AI >1+, and valve specific re-intervention, respectively. The mean age was 48 (SD = 12) years and 84% were male. Differences in preoperative comorbidities and echocardiographic parameters between groups were not statistically significant. Postoperative outcomes were similar in concentric vs. eccentric and cusp vs. no cusp repair. Recurrence of AI>1+ was minimal and unrelated to jet centricity (concentric = 1, eccentric = 3) and cusp repair (no cusp repair = 1, cusp repair = 3) long-term. Aortic valve replacement cumulative incidence was 0% for central and 5% for eccentric at 3-, 5-, and 10-years, respectively. Long-term mortality was similar regardless of jet centricity and cusp repair. In appropriately selected TAV patients with preoperative AI >2+, current results suggest VSRR provides a durable repair regardless of jet centricity or the need for cusp repair based on low rates of reintervention reported.

Bicuspid aortic valve sparing root replacement.

BACKGROUND AND AIM OF STUDY: Mid and long-term data regarding the durability of bicuspid aortic valve sparing root replacement is not completely understood. In this study, our institutional experience is reviewed regarding this procedure with special attention to the operative technique. METHODS: From 2004 to 2019, 1241 patients underwent aortic root replacement and of these 79 patients underwent bicuspid aortic valve sparing root replacement. Early and late outcomes along with echocardiographic data were reviewed. Univariate analysis was used to identify risk factors for mortality. RESULTS: Median age at operation was 43 (inner quartile range: 34.5-50.5) years, with 17% (14) being female. Median follow up time was 4 (inner quartile range: 1-8) years with 359 years of total follow up. Early mortality was 2.5% (2). Overall 10-year freedom from aortic valve intervention was 95.6%. Risk factor analysis did not demonstrate preoperative root diameter, aortic diameter, or aortic insufficiency to be risk factors for mortality. CONCLUSION: Bicuspid aortic valve sparing root replacement can be performed safely in the setting of aortic root pathology and valve insufficiency. With appropriate selection and excellent surgical technique, long-term durable valve function is observed without the need for repeat valve intervention.

Regurgitant Bicuspid Aortopathy: Is Valve-Sparing Root Replacement Equivalent to Bentall Procedure?

BACKGROUND: Repair of aortic root aneurysms with nonstenotic bicuspid valves (NS-BAVs) is achieved either with valve-sparing root replacement (VSRR) or conventional Bentall procedure (ROOT). Procedural and long-term outcomes comparing these 2 techniques are sparse and need investigation. METHODS: From March 2004 to January 2019, 158 patients with an aortic root aneurysm and NS-BAV underwent VSRR (n = 78, 49.3%) or ROOT (n = 80, 50.6%). VSRR involved optional aortic valve repair (n = 47, 60%), and ROOT was performed with bioprosthetic (81.3%) or mechanical valve replacement (18.7%). Procedural and postoperative outcomes were obtained, and univariate and Kaplan-Meier analyses were performed. RESULTS: VSRR patients were younger (42.7 ± 12.0 years of age) than ROOT (54.8 ± 13.6 years of age) (P < .001). Cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and cross-clamp duration were longer in VSRR (CPB: 228.0 ± 39.1 minutes; cross-clamp: 200.1 ± 36.2 minutes) compared with ROOT (CPB: 199.5 ± 55 minutes; cross-clamp: 170.3 ± 39.5 minutes) (P < .001). Postoperative stroke, renal failure, pneumonia, and reoperation for bleeding were similar, but postoperative atrial and ventricular arrhythmias was lower in VSRR (15% vs 42%; P < .001). Length of stay and 30-day mortality were similar. At discharge, none had greater than trivial aortic insufficiency. Long-term 10-year survival and incidence of moderate-severe aortic insufficiency, aortic stenosis, and reoperation were equivalent between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Surgery for aortopathy associated with NS-BAV is safe and effective with either VSRR or ROOT. Despite its complexity, VSRR should be considered in the surgical treatment of this population.

Interrupted Aortic Arch in a Patient with Patient-Prosthesis Mismatch after Aortic Valve Replacement.

This case presents a patient who underwent aortic valve replacement and presented 13 years later with high gradients across the prosthesis, mitral insufficiency, and severe systemic hypertension. Her preoperative workup led to the diagnosis of an interrupted aortic arch Type A. Her surgical management included an initial procedure to repair the interruption, and 11 months later after resolution of her hypertension, a second surgery, which included the Ross procedure and mitral valve repair.

Valve-Sparing Root Replacement Provides Excellent Midterm Outcomes for Bicuspid Valve Aortopathy.

BACKGROUND: Standard therapy for aortic root dilation in the setting of bicuspid aortic valves remains use of a composite valve conduit. The long-term durability of valve-sparing root replacement (VSRR) in bicuspid aortopathy is presently unclear. In this study, the midterm results of performing VSRR in the setting of a bicuspid valve was analyzed. METHODS: A single institutional database identified 280 patients who underwent VSRR from 2005 to 2016. Outcomes were analyzed in 60 consecutive patients undergoing a VSRR in the setting of a bicuspid aortic valve with aortic insufficiency (AI). Patients were followed prospectively and had annual echocardiograms. RESULTS: The average age in this series was 42 ± 11 years. Eighty percent were men and 33% had New York Heart Association class III to IV symptoms. More than 2+ AI was present in 42% of patients preoperatively. The incidence of operative death, stroke, and renal failure was 0%. Mean follow-up was 39 ± 30 months. At latest follow-up, 62% of patients had zero AI and 87% of patients had <1+ AI. At 5 years, freedom from >2+ AI was 97% and freedom from AVR was 96%. Preoperative AI was not found to be a significant risk factor for postoperative >2+ AI (p = 0.61) or AVR (p = 0.61). CONCLUSIONS: VSRR can be safely and effectively performed in young patients with bicuspid valve anatomy regardless of degree of preoperative AI. Valve function is durable and the incidence of valve-related complications is low. VSRR is an attractive and potentially superior option to conventional root replacement in appropriately selected patients with bicuspid aortopathy.

Valve Sparing Root Replacement Provides Similar Midterm Outcomes in Bicuspid and Trileaflet Valves.

BACKGROUND: Valve-sparing aortic root replacement (VSRR) is an established treatment for aortic root pathology for trileaflet valves. The safety and durability of VSRR in bicuspid aortopathy is unclear. In this study, outcomes of performing VSRR in the setting of bicuspid and trileaflet valves were compared. METHODS: An institutional database identified 294 patients who underwent VSRR from 2005 to 2017. Of these, 225 had trileaflet valves and 69 had bicuspid valves. Patients were followed prospectively and had annual postoperative echocardiograms. Propensity-matched comparisons were made between trileaflet and bicuspid valve patients. RESULTS: The average patient age for trileaflet valves was 46.0 ± 13.5 versus 42.7 ± 12.2 years for bicuspid patients (p = 0.07). There was a higher presence of preoperative >2+ aortic insufficiency (AI) present in bicuspid patients (63.8%) compared with trileaflet patients (31.1%) (p < 0.01). Mean follow-up was 39 months and was 98% complete. At 5 years, the cumulative incidence of >2+ AI and aortic valve replacement (AVR) was 2.0% and 4.3% in trileaflet patients and 7.7% (p = 0.75) and 7.7% (p = 0.81) in bicuspid patients. Preoperative >2+ AI was not predictive of >2+ postoperative AI (p = 0.62) nor AVR (p = 0.49). Five-year survival was no different between groups (trileaflet: 98%, bicuspid: 84%, p = 0.24). CONCLUSIONS: VSRR can be safely and effectively performed in patients with trileaflet and bicuspid valves. Operative outcomes and valve function were equivalent in bicuspid and trileaflet patients in midterm follow-up. Performance of VSRR is a viable term option in the setting bicuspid aortic valve aortopathy.

Durability and safety of David V valve-sparing root replacement in acute type A aortic dissection.

BACKGROUND: Valve-sparing root replacement (VSRR) is an attractive option in type A aortic dissection (TAAD) repair for a young patient with normal cusp anatomy, but conventional root replacement using a composite valved-conduit (ROOT) remains the gold standard in this emergent clinical setting. We examine the long-term safety and durability of the David V VSRR compared with ROOT in TAAD repair. METHODS: From March 2004 to April 2017, 136 patients underwent repair of acute TAAD using either ROOT (n = 77; 56.6%) or VSRR (n = 59; 43.4%). Annual echocardiograms were performed for follow-up in VSRR patients. Univariable regression, Kaplan-Meier, and competing risk analyses were performed. RESULTS: Preoperative characteristics were similar between groups, except that VSRR patients were younger (mean age 43.5 ± 11.4 years VSRR vs 50.4 ± 3.0 years ROOT; P = .001). Both groups had similar rates of preoperative malperfusion or shock (29.3% VSRR vs 37.0% ROOT; P = .35) and ≥3+ aortic insufficiency (63% VSRR vs 76.8% ROOT). Thirty-day mortality in the VSRR group was 2/59 (3.4%) and 11/77 in the ROOT group (14.3%; P < .001). All-cause survival at 9 years was 92% (VSRR) and 59% (ROOT; P = .002). The incidence of aortic reintervention was similar between groups (20%-23% at 5 years; P = .81). At 9 years of follow-up, 5/52 (9.6%) VSRR patients had ≥2+ aortic insufficiency, and 1 patient required valve reintervention. CONCLUSIONS: In highly-selected patients, the David V VSRR provides a safe repair of acute TAAD with concomitant root pathology and valve insufficiency. In our center, the incidence of valve-related reintervention at long-term follow-up is low after emergent repair.

The evidence in a Bentall procedure with Valsalva graft: is this standard of care?

BACKGROUND: Biologic valved-conduits avoids the need for anticoagulation and can exploit the excellent hemodynamic performance of stentless valves. Incorporation of the sinuses of Valsalva into the neoaortic root can improve the function and longevity of stentless valves. We report our experience in performing the Bentall procedure with a self-prefabricated composite valved-conduit and review the published experience with the Valsalva graft. METHODS: From Feb 2005 through Sep 2017, 428 patients underwent aortic root replacement utilizing a composite graft constructed from a 27-29-mm Freestyle MS valve (Medtronic) sutured into a 28-30-mm Gelweave Valsalva prosthesis (Sulzer Vascutek, Renfrewshire, Scotland). Data were retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: Mean age was 58±13 years, with a male predominance (337, 79%). Additional surgical procedures included a mitral valve repair/replacement in 10 patients (2%), coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) in 114 patients (27%), and aortic arch (hemi or total) replacement in 252 patients (59%). Average cardiopulmonary bypass, cross-clamp, and circulatory arrest times were 210±57, 180±44, and 29±15 min, respectively. Thirty-day mortality was 7% (31 patients). Mean echocardiography follow-up was 27.2±29.0 months (range, 1-138 months). Pressure gradients (mean, peak) across the aortic valve on latest echocardiography were 5.59, 10.57 mmHg respectively. Freedom from >2+ aortic insufficiency (AI) at 6 and 9 years was 96%, and 87% respectively. Freedom from aortic valve replacement (AVR) at 6 and 9 years was 99%, and 95% respectively. To date, 4 (1%) patients required an additional aortic valve intervention secondary to structural valve degeneration. CONCLUSIONS: Use of the Valsalva graft combined with the Freestyle valve for Bentall procedures is associated with favorable results. Clinical outcomes are excellent and in longitudinal follow-up, valve-related complications are minimal.

Bicuspid aortic valve repair in the setting of severe aortic insufficiency.

BACKGROUND: Bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) is a common cardiac anomaly that affects 0.5-2% of adults. Valve sparing root replacement (VSRR) in bicuspid aortopathy is gaining popularity. We discuss the technical aspects of the procedure as well as the mid- to long-term results of performing VSRR in the setting of a bicuspid valve. METHODS: A single institutional database identified 280 patients who underwent VSRR from 2005-2016. Outcomes were analyzed in 60 consecutive patients undergoing a VSRR in the setting of a BAV with aortic regurgitation (AR). Patients were followed prospectively and had annual echocardiograms. RESULTS: The average age in this series was 42±11 years. Moderate or more AR was present in 50% of patients preoperatively. The incidence of operative death, stroke, and renal failure was 0%. Mean follow-up was 39±30 months. At latest follow-up, 62% of patients had zero AR and 87% of patients had <1+ AR. At 9 years, freedom from >2+ AR was 97% and freedom from aortic valve repair (AVR) was 96%. CONCLUSIONS: VSRR can be safely and effectively performed in young patients with bicuspid valve anatomy regardless of degree of pre-operative AR. Valve function is durable and the incidence of valve-related complications is low. VSRR is an attractive and potentially superior option to conventional root replacement in appropriately selected patients with bicuspid aortopathy.

Risk Factors for Late Aortic Valve Dysfunction After the David V Valve-Sparing Root Replacement.

BACKGROUND: Valve-sparing root replacement (VSRR) is an established therapy for aortic root pathology. However, late aortic valve dysfunction requiring reoperation remains a primary concern of this procedure. This study examines risk factors for late aortic insufficiency (AI) and aortic stenosis (AS) after David V VSRR. METHODS: A retrospective review from 2005 to 2015 at a US academic center identified 282 patients who underwent VSRR. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to identify risk factors for late AI and AS after VSRR. RESULTS: The mean age was 46.4 years. Sixty-four patients (22.7%) had bicuspid valves, and 41 patients (14.5%) had Marfan syndrome. The incidence of reoperations was 27 (9.6%), and 42 cases (14.9%) presented with acute type A dissection. Operative mortality was 8 (2.8%). Seven-year survival was 90.9%. Seven-year cumulative incidence of reoperation, greater than 2+ AI and greater than moderate AS were 3.1%, 2.2%, and 0.8%, respectively. Multivariable analysis showed aortic root size 55 mm or larger (hazard ratio 3.44, 95% confidence interval: 1.27 to 9.29, p = 0.01) to be a risk factor for late AI whereas bicuspid valve (hazard ratio 16.07, 95% confidence interval: 3.12 to 82.68, p = 0.001) and cusp repair were found to be risk factors (hazard ratio 5.91, 95% confidence interval: 1.17 to 29.86, p = 0.03) for late AS. CONCLUSIONS: Valve-sparing root replacement can be performed with low operative risk and good overall long-term survival even in complex clinical settings. Durable valve function can be expected; however, aortic root size 55 cm or more, bicuspid valve anatomy, and cusp repair represent independent risk factors for late aortic valve dysfunction after these procedures.

Reoperative aortic root replacement: Outcome in a contemporary series.

OBJECTIVES: Reoperative aortic root replacement is a challenging procedure associated with significant mortality and morbidity. The purpose of this study was to investigate the outcomes of reoperative aortic root replacement when performed in a number of complex clinical settings and to identify risk factors for operative mortality and long-term survival. METHODS: From 2006 to 2015, 280 consecutive patients at an academic center underwent reoperative aortic root replacement after a variety of previous aortic or cardiac operations. Logistic regression and extended Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to determine risk factors for operative mortality and long-term survival, respectively. RESULTS: The mean age of patients was 52.5 ± 14.1 years. Prior operations included proximal aortic replacement in 113 patients, valve surgery in 162 patients, and coronary artery bypass grafting in 46 patients. Concomitant procedures included arch replacement in 135 patients, coronary artery bypass grafting in 68 patients, and mitral valve repair/replacement in 18 patients. Operative mortality was 14.3%. Five-year survival was 74.0%. Univariable analysis did not find previous root replacement, prior proximal aortic surgery, and concomitant arch replacement to be risk factors for operative mortality. In the multivariable analysis, chronic lung disease, prior myocardial infarction, and concomitant mitral valve surgery were risk factors for operative mortality. Age, peripheral artery disease, emergency, and concomitant mitral valve surgery were risk factors for mortality in the late phase. CONCLUSIONS: Reoperative aortic root replacement represents complex procedures carrying significant morbidity and mortality. Chronic lung disease, prior myocardial infarction, and concomitant mitral valve surgery were risk factors for operative mortality. Age, peripheral artery disease, emergency, and concomitant mitral valve surgery were risk factors for long-term mortality.

Clinical Outcomes of the David V Valve-Sparing Root Replacement Compared With Bioprosthetic Valve-Conduits for Aortic Root Aneurysms.

BACKGROUND: Valve-sparing root replacement (VSRR) is an established therapy for aortic root pathology. Limited insight exists when the results of VSRR are compared with those of conventional root replacement with use of a bioprosthetic composite conduit (BIO). This study compares the operative and midterm results of VSRR and BIO. METHODS: A retrospective review from 2002 to 2015 at a United States academic center identified 282 patients who underwent VSRR and 425 patients who underwent BIO. Propensity-score matching was performed based on 20 preoperative characteristics, and 123 matched pairs were identified. RESULTS: The mean age (VSRR 53.5 ± 11.1, BIO 53.0 ± 13.0; p = 0.74) and left ventricular ejection fraction (VSRR 54.5 ± 9.2%, BIO 54.4 ± 9.4%; p = 0.99) were equivalent in both groups. The incidence of bicuspid valves (VSRR 26.0%, BIO 27.6%; p = 0.77), Marfan syndrome (VSRR 6.5%, BIO 4.9%; p = 0.58), type A dissection (VSRR 13.0%, BIO 13.0%; p = 0.99), reoperation (VSRR 15.4%, BIO 20.3%; p = 0.32) and arch replacement (VSRR 60.2%, BIO 63.4%; p = 0.60) were similar between the groups. Operative mortality was 5.7% in VSRR and 0.8% in BIO (p = 0.07). There were no significant differences in postoperative renal failure (VSRR 0.8%, BIO 0.0%; p = 0.99) or stroke (VSRR 3.3%, BIO 0.8%; p = 0.37) between the groups. The 7-year survival (VSSR 82.4%, BIO 83.0%; p = 0.53), 7-year freedom from reoperation (VSRR 97.4%, BIO 95.8%; p = 0.48), and 7-year freedom from greater than moderate aortic insufficiency (AI) (VSRR 98.1%, BIO 100.0%; p = 0.47) were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: VSRR and BIO result in equivalent operative mortality and morbidity with similar midterm survival and valve durability. VSRR is an effective alternative to BIO for aortic root pathologic conditions; however, careful patient selection is paramount.

Severity of Preoperative Aortic Regurgitation Does Not Impact Valve Durability of Aortic Valve Repair Following the David V Valve Sparing Aortic Root Replacement.

BACKGROUND: The David V valve-sparing aortic root replacement (VSRR) is an established and durable method of root reconstruction for varying pathologies. However, the impact of the severity of preoperative aortic regurgitation (AR) on long-term durability remains unclear. The purpose of this research was to investigate the impact of the degree of preoperative AR on midterm durability following VSRR. METHODS: A retrospective review of the adult cardiac surgical database at a single academic center was undertaken from 2005 to 2015 for 223 adult patients who underwent VSRR. Patients were followed annually with echocardiograms, and a prospectively maintained database kept track of patient data. Follow-up was 97.7% complete, and the median echocardiographic follow-up was 25.5 months (range, 1 to 123 months). Patients with preoperative AR less than or equal to 2 were compared with patients with AR greater than 2 to determine the impact of preoperative AR upon valve repair durability. RESULTS: There were 223 patients who underwent VSRR during the study period, including 114 (51.1%) who required concomitant cusp repair. The operative mortality was 5 (2.2%). Ninety-seven patients (43.5%) had preoperative AR greater than 2. A total of 213 patients (95.5%) were available for long-term follow-up; of these patients, 7 (3.3%) had AR greater than 2. Fifty-two patients had a bicuspid aortic valve (22 AR ≤2 and 30 AR >2; p = 0.02). Patients with preoperative AR greater than 2 experienced greater reverse left ventricular remodeling and increases in left ventricular ejection fraction than did patients with preoperative AR less than or equal to 2 (p < 0.01). The midterm freedom from AR greater than 2 was similar for both preoperative AR groups (p = 0.57). The 8-year freedom from AR greater than 2 was 89.1% (95% confidence interval, 55.3% to 97.8%) for patients with preoperative AR less than or equal to 2 and 92.7% (95% confidence interval, 78.8% to 97.6%) for preoperative AR greater than 2. Five patients (2.4%) required aortic valve replacement during the follow-up period (3 preoperative AR ≤2, 2 preoperative AR >2). CONCLUSIONS: VSRR remains an effective and durable treatment for severe AR and preserved leaflet architecture. The severity of preoperative AR does not appear to impact midterm freedom from moderate to severe AR. VSRR results in significant left ventricular remodeling in patients with preoperative AR greater than 2.

The David V Valve-Sparing Root Replacement Provides Improved Survival Compared With Mechanical Valve-conduits in the Treatment of Young Patients With Aortic Root Pathology.

BACKGROUND: Valve-sparing root replacement (VSRR) is an attractive therapy for aortic root aneurysms; however, there is a paucity of data comparing VSRR with conventional root replacement using a mechanical valve-conduit (MECH). This study evaluates and compares outcomes of VSRR and MECH. METHODS: A retrospective review from 2002 to 2015 at a US academic center identified 444 patients who underwent VSRR (282 patients) or MECH (162 patients). Propensity score matching was performed, based on 22 preoperative and intraoperative characteristics, and 87 matched pairs were identified. RESULTS: There was no difference in mean age between the groups (VSRR 45.0 years, MECH 44.2 years, p = 0.59). The incidence of Marfan syndrome (VSRR 10.3%, MECH 12.6%, p = 0.63), type A acute aortic dissection (VSRR 25.3%, MECH 27.6%, p = 0.73), reoperation (VSRR 23.0%, MECH 21.8%, p = 0.86), and arch replacement (VSRR 54.0%, MECH 52.9%, p = 0.88) were similar in both groups. Ejection fraction was similar (VSRR 52.8% ± 10.9%, MECH 52.4% ± 11.7%, p = 0.83). Operative mortality was 2.3% with VSRR and 8.0% with MECH (p = 0.10). There were no significant differences in renal failure requiring dialysis (VSRR 1.1%, MECH 4.6%, p = 0.24), permanent neurologic dysfunction (VSRR 2.3%, MECH 6.9%, p = 0.16), and pacemaker implantation (VSRR 1.1%, MECH 1.1%, p = 0.99) between the groups. Survival at 7 years was significantly improved in patients who underwent VSSR (VSRR 85.5%, MECH 73.6%, p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: In comparison with patients undergoing MECH, there is improved midterm survival among patients undergoing VSRR, with similar operative mortality and morbidity. For appropriately selected patients, VSRR provides an attractive and potentially superior alternative to MECH.

Midterm results of David V valve-sparing aortic root replacement in acute type A aortic dissection.

BACKGROUND: The David V valve-sparing aortic root replacement (David V) has been shown to provide excellent long-term valve function and low rates of valve-related complications in the elective treatment of aortic root aneurysms. The safety and durability of the David V in the repair of acute type A aortic dissection (type A) are currently unclear. In this study, the midterm results of David V in the setting of type A aortic dissection were analyzed. METHODS: From 2005 to 2013, 350 patients underwent surgical repair of type A aortic dissection. Outcomes were analyzed in 43 consecutive patients who received a David V during repair of type A aortic dissection. Patients were followed with annual postoperative echocardiograms. Follow-up was 85% complete, with a mean duration of 40 ± 31 months. RESULTS: The mean age of these patients was 46 ± 10 years. There were two operative deaths (4.7%), and 93% of patients required a hemiarch replacement (n = 32) or a total arch replacement (n = 8) using hypothermic circulatory arrest. Cusp repairs were performed in 6 (14%) patients; 51% of patients had 3+ or greater preoperative aortic insufficiency (AI), 83% of patients left the operating room with zero AI, and the remainder had 1+ AI or less. No patient in the follow-up period developed endocarditis or required aortic valve replacement. At midterm follow-up, freedom from 2+ AI was 94%, and freedom from aortic valve replacement was 100%. CONCLUSIONS: The David V can be performed with low morbidity and mortality in young patients presenting with type A aortic dissection who require aortic root replacement. At midterm follow-up, valve function is durable, and the incidence of valve-related complications is low.

Improved left ventricular function and remodeling after the david v for significant aortic insufficiency.

BACKGROUND: Valve-sparing root replacement is controversial in patients with significant aortic insufficiency (AI) because the aortic valve cusps often require repair, which may potentially jeopardize long-term valve function. The purpose of this study was to evaluate valve function and left ventricular reverse remodeling in patients undergoing valve-sparing root replacement in the setting of significant AI. METHODS: A review of the Emory Aortic Surgery database between 2004 and 2012 identified 616 aortic root replacements. Of these procedures, 169 were performed for patients with 3+ or greater AI. Fifty-one patients (30%) underwent a David V procedure. Echocardiography was used to evaluate the degree of AI, left ventricular end-diastolic diameter, and left ventricular end-systolic diameter. RESULTS: The mean echocardiographic follow-up was 18 ± 21 months (range, 1 to 89). Patients undergoing valve-sparing root replacement had an increase in ejection fraction (preoperative 51% ± 7% versus postoperative 57% ± 6%, p < 0.01) and a reduction in left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (preoperative 58 ± 8 mm versus postoperative 48 ± 6 mm, p < 0.01) and left ventricular end-systolic diameter (preoperative 40 ± 8 mm versus postoperative 32 ± 6 mm, p < 0.01). During the follow-up period, freedom from greater than 1+ AI was 96%, and freedom from aortic valve replacement was 98%. The addition of cusp repair did not represent a significant risk factor for recurrent postoperative AI (p = 0.21). CONCLUSIONS: The David V technique produces significant left ventricular reverse remodeling and improved ventricular function in patients with chronic severe AI. Long-term data and close follow-up will be paramount in evaluating the durability of valve repair in this patient population.

Expanding the indications for the David V aortic root replacement: early results.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the early results of the David V valve-sparing aortic root replacement procedure in expanded, higher risk clinical scenarios with appropriately selected patients. METHODS: From 2005 to 2011, 150 David V valve-sparing aortic root replacements were performed within Emory Healthcare. A total of 78 patients (expanded group) had undergone the David V in expanded, difficult clinical settings such as emergent type A dissection (n = 29), grade 3+ or greater aortic insufficiency (AI) (n = 53), or reoperative cardiac surgery (n = 14). These patients were evaluated and compared with a group of 72 patients (traditional group) with less than grade 3+ AI who underwent a David V in a traditional, elective setting. The mean follow-up was 19 months (range, 1-72), and the follow-up data were 88% complete. RESULTS: There were 3 operative deaths (2.2%), all occurring in the expanded group. The overall patient survival at 6 years was 95%. Three patients required aortic valve replacement: two for severe AI and one for fungal endocarditis. Both groups had concomitant cusp repairs performed in conjunction with the David V (traditional, n = 10; and expanded, n = 16; P = .27). At follow-up, freedom from moderate AI was 93%, and the freedom from aortic valve replacement was 98%. No significant difference was observed in the freedom from moderate AI between the expanded and traditional groups (91% vs 95%, respectively; P = .16). CONCLUSIONS: In selected patients possessing appropriate aortic cusp anatomy, the David V can be safely and effectively performed for the expanded indications of aortic dissection, severe AI, and reoperative cardiac surgery with low operative risk. Valve function has remained excellent in the short term, providing evidence of durability and a low rate of valve-related complications.