Long-term outcomes of aortic root procedures for heterogenous ascending aneurysm disease in bicuspid aortic valve syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: Surgery for ascending aneurysms in bicuspid aortic valve syndrome primarily includes Bentall root replacement, aortic valve replacement with supracoronary ascending aorta replacement (AVRSCAAR), and valve-sparing root reimplantation (VSRR). Comparative analysis of long-term clinical and functional outcomes of these procedures is detailed. METHODS: From 1997 to 2017, 635 patients with bicuspid aortic valve undergoing root complex-focused procedures electively were stratified by valvulopathy (ie, aortic stenosis vs aortic insufficiency) and substratified into ascending or root aneurysm phenotype. Inverse probability weights were calculated to adjust for baseline differences. RESULTS: Kaplan-Meier curves for all-cause mortality demonstrated no difference between Bentall versus AVRSCAAR for aortic stenosis and aortic insufficiency presentations (log-rank P > .05). In patients with aortic stenosis, multivariable Cox regression showed significantly decreased risk of stroke for biologic AVRSCAAR (hazard ratio, 0.04; P = .013). Aortic reoperation rates were similar for biologic versus mechanical valves (P = .353). In patients with aortic insufficiency, similar long-term mortality (hazard ratio, 0.95; P = .93), but lower stroke risk in biologic AVRSCAAR group by Cox regression, and lower aortic reoperation rate was noted (coefficient < 0.01; P < .001). Comparing Bentall to VSRR, mortality (hazard ratio, 0.12; P = .022) was significantly improved in patients undergoing VSRR, but recurrence of moderate or greater aortic insufficiency was higher in VSRR by multistate model (beta coefficient 2.63; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: A tailored approach to heterogeneous ascending aneurysm pathologies in bicuspid aortic valve syndrome utilizing Bentall, AVRSCAAR, and VSRR procedures renders excellent long-term clinical and functional outcomes, with biologic conduits showing equivalent to improved clinical outcomes.

Two different geometric orientations for aortic neoroot creation in bicuspid aortic valve repair with root reimplantation.

OBJECTIVE: Bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) represents 2 cusps oriented along a spectrum of equal (180°/180°) or unequal (150°/210°) leaflet surface area distribution along the aortic annular plane. We have taken the approach of respecting the native geometric orientation of the repaired BAV leaflets when creating the aortic neoroot during valve-sparing root reimplantation (VSRR) procedures. We investigated midterm outcomes with this 2-prong approach for VSRR in BAV syndrome. METHODS: Of 72 patients in a prospectively maintained BAV repair database, 68 met inclusion criteria: 36 patients had 180°/180° neoroot geometry, and 32 patients had 150°/210° orientation. A multivariate ordinal logistic mixed effects model was performed to study parameters associated with recurrent AI greater than 2+. RESULTS: Preoperative parameters were similar between 180°/180° and 150°/210° groups, except for greater incidence of AI 4+ in the latter (50.0% [n = 16] vs 8.3% [n = 3]; P < .001). Postoperatively, stroke, renal failure, reoperation for bleeding, and pacemaker rates were 0 in the entire cohort. In-hospital/30-day mortality in the entire cohort was 1.5% (n = 1). Multivariate ordinal logistic mixed effects model showed that preoperative AI greater than 3+ (odds ratio, 0.4; P = .46) and geometric orientation of the aortic neoroot (odds ratio, 3.8; P = .25) were not significantly associated with recurrence of AI greater than 2+. CONCLUSIONS: Respecting BAV geometry for VSRR neoroot creation yields excellent midterm outcomes and may minimize conjoint cusp leaflet stress that may occur in "forcing" a 150°/210° type I BAV into a 180°/180° neoroot.

Fate of remnant sinuses of Valsalva in patients with bicuspid and trileaflet valves undergoing aortic valve, ascending aorta, and aortic arch replacement.

OBJECTIVE: In patients presenting with aortic valvulopathy with concomitant ascending aortic aneurysm, surgical management of the sinus of Valsalva segment remains undefined, especially for moderately dilated aortic roots. In patients with this pathology undergoing aortic valve replacement with supracoronary ascending aorta replacement, we assessed the fate of the remnant preserved sinus of Valsalva segment stratified by aortic valve morphology and pathology. METHODS: From 2002 to 2015, 428 patients underwent elective aortic valve replacement with supracoronary ascending aorta replacement. Patients were stratified on the basis of valvular morphology (bicuspid aortic valve [n = 254] and tricuspid aortic valve [n = 174]), valvular pathology (bicuspid aortic valve with aortic stenosis [n = 178], bicuspid aortic valve with aortic insufficiency [n = 76], tricuspid aortic valve with aortic stenosis [n = 61], tricuspid aortic valve with aortic insufficiency [n = 113]), and preoperative sinus of Valsalva dimensions (<40, 40-45, >45 mm). RESULTS: Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed no significant difference in freedom from reoperation in tricuspid aortic valve versus bicuspid aortic valve (P = .576). Multivariable Cox regression model performed with sinus of Valsalva dimensions at baseline and follow-up as time-varying covariates did not adversely affect survival. A repeated-measure, mixed-effects model constructed to assess longitudinal sinus of Valsalva trends revealed that the retained sinus of Valsalva dimensions remain stable over long-term follow-up (discharge to ≥10 years), irrespective of valvular morphology/pathology (bicuspid aortic valve with aortic insufficiency, tricuspid aortic valve with aortic insufficiency, tricuspid aortic valve with aortic stenosis) and preoperative sinus of Valsalva groups (<40, 40-45, >45 mm). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with nonaneurysmal sinuses of Valsalva undergoing aortic valve replacement with supracoronary ascending aorta replacement, the sinus segment can be preserved irrespective of the type of valvular pathology (aortic stenosis vs aortic insufficiency) or valvular morphology (bicuspid aortic valve vs tricuspid aortic valve). Aortic valve replacement with supracoronary ascending aorta replacement may have a stabilizing effect on the sinus segment over long-term follow-up in patients with tricuspid aortic valves or bicuspid aortic valves.