Comparison of hemodynamics and root configurations between remodeling and reimplantation methods for valve-sparing aortic root replacement: a pulsatile flow study.

PURPOSE: To compare the characteristics of reimplantation (RI) using grafts with sinuses and remodeling (RM) with/without external suture annuloplasty using a pulsatile flow simulator. METHODS: Porcine aortic roots were obtained from an abattoir, and six models of RM and RI with sinuses were prepared. External suture annuloplasty (ESA) was performed in the RM models to decrease the root diameter to 22 mm (RM-AP22) and 18 mm (RM-AP18). Valve models were tested at mean pulsatile flow and aortic pressure of 5.0 L/min and 120/80 (100) mmHg, respectively, at 70 beats/min. The forward flow, regurgitation, leakage, backflow rates, valve-closing time, and mean and peak pressure gradient (p-PG) were evaluated. Root configurations were examined using micro-computed tomography (micro-CT). RESULTS: The backflow rate was larger in the RM models than in the RI models (RI: 8.56% ± 0.38% vs. RM: 12.64% ± 0.79%; p < 0.01). The RM-AP and RI models were comparable in terms of the forward flow, regurgitation, backflow rates, p-PG, and valve-closing time. The analysis using a micro-CT showed a larger dilatation of the sinus of the Valsalva in the RM groups than in the RI group (Valsalva: RI, 26.55 ± 0.40 mm vs. RM-AP22, 31.22 ± 0.55 mm [p < 0.05]; RM-AP18, 31.05 ± 0.85 mm [p < 0.05]). CONCLUSIONS: RM with ESA and RI with neo-sinuses showed comparable hemodynamics. ESA to RM reduced regurgitation.

Aortic root geometry following valve-sparing root replacement with reimplantation or remodeling: experimental investigation under static continuous pressure.

The differences in aortic root geometry associated with various valve-sparing root replacement (VSRR) techniques have not fully been understood. We evaluated the root configuration of current VSRR techniques by developing in vitro test apparatus. Six fresh porcine hearts were used for each model. The aortic root remodeling control group involved replacement of the ascending aorta with diameter reduction of sino-tubular junction (STJ) (C1). The aortic valve reimplantation control group involved replacement of the ascending aorta alone (C2). VSRR included remodeling without (RM) or with annuloplasty (RM + A) and reimplantation with a tube (RI) or a handmade neo-Valsalva graft (RI + V). The root geometry of each model in response to closing hydraulic pressures of 80 and 120 mmHg was investigated using echocardiography. Among the VSRR models, RM yielded the largest aorto-ventricular junction (AVJ), which was similar to those in non-VSRR models [mean AVJ diameter (mm) at 80 mmHg; RM = 25.1 ± 1.5, RM + A = 20.9 ± 0.7, RI = 20.7 ± 0.9, RI + V = 20.8 ± 0.4]. RI + V yielded the largest Valsalva size and largest ratio of Valsalva/AVJ, which was similar to the control group [mean Valsalva diameter (mm) at 80 mmHg; RM = 28.4 ± 1.4, RM + A = 25.8 ± 1.3, RI = 23.6 ± 1.0, RI + V = 30.5 ± 0.8, ratio of Valsalva/AVJ at 80 mmHg; RM = 1.14 ± 0.06, RM + A = 1.24 ± 0.06, RI = 1.15 ± 0.06, RI + V = 1.47 ± 0.05]. The STJ diameter at 80 mmHg was numerically smaller with RM + A (22.4 ± 1.2 mm) than with RM (24.8 ± 2.3 mm, p = 0.11). There were no significant differences in AVJ, Valsalva, or STJ distensibility or ellipticity between procedures. Current modifications, including annuloplasty for remodeling or reimplantation in the setting of neo-Valsalva graft, yield near-physiological root geometries.

Aortic root rotation: morphological analysis of the aortic root with three-dimensional computed tomography.

OBJECTIVES: The aortic root (AoR) rotation and its spatial morphology at the base of the heart were postulated but not described in every detail. AoR rotation modalities may play an important role in decision-making during AoR surgery and its outcome. The aim was to provide a detailed spatial anatomy of the AoR rotation and its relation to the vital surrounding structure. METHODS: The AoR rotation and its relation to the surrounding structure were assessed in 104 patients with tricuspid aortic valve. The interatrial septum was chosen as a reference to describe AoR rotation that marked the midline of the heart base as a landmark for the AoR rotation direction. Intermediate, clockwise and counterclockwise AoR rotations were defined based on the mentioned reference structures. RESULTS: The AoR rotation was successfully assessed in 104 patients undergoing ascending aorta and or AoR intervention by multidetector row computed tomography. AoR was positioned normally in 53.8% of cases (n = 56) and rotated counterclockwise in 5.8% (n = 6) and clockwise in 40.4% (n = 42) of cases. In clockwise AoR rotation, the right coronary sinus was positioned in proximity to the right atrium and of the tricuspid valve, whereas in a counterclockwise rotation, the noncoronary sinus was placed over the tricuspid valve just over the membranous septum. CONCLUSIONS: The AoR's rotation can be diagnosed using multidetector row computed tomography. Understanding the anatomy of the aortic valve related to rotational position helps guide surgical decision-making in performing AoR reconstruction.

Survival and repair durability in patients undergoing concomitant aortic valve reimplantation and mitral valve repair.

Objective: The study objective was to determine repair durability and survival in patients with and without connective tissue disorders undergoing concomitant aortic valve reimplantation and mitral valve repair. Methods: From 2002 to 2019, 68 patients underwent concomitant aortic valve reimplantation and mitral valve repair, including 27 patients with Marfan syndrome (39.7%). Follow-up echocardiograms were analyzed using nonlinear multiphase mixed-effects cumulative logistic regression. The regurgitation grade over time was estimated by averaging patient-specific profiles. Survival and freedom from reoperation were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: At 7 years, 11% of patients had aortic insufficiency greater than mild (severe in 2 patients). There was no difference in greater than mild aortic insufficiency between patients with or without Marfan syndrome (P = .37). Twenty percent of patients had progressed to mitral regurgitation greater than mild (severe in only 1 patient). The prevalence of recurrent mitral regurgitation was higher in those without Marfan syndrome, with greater than mild regurgitation increasing to 24% by 2 years and remaining constant thereafter (P = .04). Freedom from reoperation on the aortic valve or mitral valve was 83% at 10 years and did not differ between Marfan syndrome groups. There were no cases of perioperative mortality. Survival at 5 and 10 years was 94% and 87%, respectively, without a difference between those with and without Marfan syndrome. Conclusions: Patients can undergo a total repair strategy using combined aortic valve reimplantation and mitral valve repair procedures with a low risk of mortality and complications, with favorable freedom from both residual valve regurgitation and reoperation.

Aortic valve reimplantation in patients with connective tissue disorders: Are the leaflets durable?

OBJECTIVE: The durability of reimplanted myxomatous aortic valves in root replacements for patients with connective tissue disorders (CTD) is unclear; therefore, we sought to evaluate the long-term resilience of these repairs. METHODS: From January 1980 to January 2020, 214 patients with CTD and 645 without CTD underwent primary, elective aortic valve reimplantation operations at Cleveland Clinic. The CTD cohort included 164 (77%) with Marfan, 23 (11%) with Loeys-Dietz, and 7 (3.3%) with Ehlers-Danlos CTD. We accounted for differing patient characteristics between the groups by propensity score matching to compare outcomes, yielding 96 matched pairs. Longitudinal echocardiographic measures were compared using nonlinear mixed effects models. RESULTS: In the CTD cohort, there were no operative mortalities (30-day or in-hospital), 1 (0.47%) stroke, and 1 (0.47%) early in-hospital reoperation for valve dysfunction. Ten-year prevalence of no aortic regurgitation was 86%, mild 11%, and moderate 3%. Ten-year freedom from reoperation was 97%. In propensity matched cohorts, there were no significant differences in in-hospital outcomes, longitudinal aortic regurgitation and mean gradient, risk of reoperation on the aortic valve, or risk of late death. CONCLUSIONS: Aortic valve reimplantation is a durable operation in patients with CTD and root aneurysms. These patients do not experience early degeneration of their reimplanted aortic valves.

Twenty-year experience of aortic valve reimplantation using the Valsalva graft.

OBJECTIVES: Over the past 20 years, valve-sparing aortic root replacement has aroused increasing interest because of a progressive attitude towards the preservation of natural tissue. Aortic reimplantation is the most used technique to spare the valve, allowing simultaneously aortic root replacement and aortic annular stabilization. The reimplantation into a graft with sinuses guarantees an optimal anatomic and functional reconstruction with established good results at 15 years. The aim of this study is to report the world longest follow-up (up to 20 years) of aortic valve reimplantation using the Valsalva graft. METHODS: From February 2000 to December 2021, 265 consecutive patients with aortic root aneurysm received aortic valve reimplantation using the Valsalva graft. From 2018, leaflet plication with the routine use of calliper was performed. For each patient, we performed both intraoperative and post-procedural transoesophageal echocardiography. All patients were followed with clinical assessment and echocardiography. The mean duration of follow-up was 85 ± 63 months. RESULTS: The study cohort had a median age of 55 ± 18 and 87.2% were male. The aortic root aneurysm was associated to bicuspid aortic valve in 18.9% of patients and to Marfan syndrome in 10.6% of cases. 55.9% had an aortic regurgitation ≥ 2+. Overall survival at 15 was 87.6 ± 3.4. Freedom from cardiac death was stable at 99.6 ± 0.4 at 5, 10 and 15 years. Freedom from recurrent AR ≥3+ and freedom from reoperation remained stable at 10 and 15 years at 92.2 ± 2.1 and 95.9 ± 1.6, respectively. There was a minimal incidence of infective endocarditis (0.8%), thromboembolism (2.2%) and haemorrhage (2.0%). Six out of 7 patients requiring reoperation had surgery in the first period of our experience (last in 2004). Early suboptimal results had a negative effect on residual aortic regurgitation. Moreover, we hypothesized that the routine use of calliper may have contributed to a further improvement of the outcome, even if these data need to be confirmed by a longer follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The first long-term follow-up after aortic valve reimplantation using the Valsalva graft demonstrated excellent results. These long-term results gradually improved with learning curve, remaining stable during the second decade of observation. The systematic use of calliper may have contributed to a further improvement of the outcome.

Aortic valve reimplantation in patients with connective tissue syndromes: A 15-year follow-up.

OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to analyse early- and long-term outcomes of aortic valve reimplantation (David operation) in patients with heritable thoracic aortic disease. METHODS: This is a retrospective observational analysis using data from a prospectively maintained surgical database from March 2004 to April 2021. Patients with heritable thoracic aortic disease were included in the study. RESULTS: A total of 157 patients with aortic root aneurysm with the diagnosis of heritable thoracic aortic disease received the David procedure. Marfan syndrome was found in 143 (91.1%) patients, Loeys-Dietz in 13 and Ehler-Danlos in 1 patient. The median age was 35.0 (IQR: 17.5) years and the median ascending aorta diameter in the Valsalva sinuses was 48 mm (IQR: 4). A Valsalva graft was used in 8 patients; the David V technique was performed in the rest of the cases. The median follow-up time was 7.3 years [standard deviation: 0.58, 95% confidence interval (CI): 6.12-8.05]. Only 2 patients died during the follow-up period. The overall survival was 99% (95% CI: 95%; 99%); 98% (95% CI: 92%; 99%); and 98% (95% CI: 92%; 99%) at 5, 10 and 15 years. Freedom from significant aortic regurgitation (AR> II), reintervention and postoperative type-B dissection was 90% (95% CI: 77%; 95%), 96% (95% CI: 91%; 99%) and 87% (95% CI: 68%; 95%) at 15 years, respectively. No differences were found in any outcome between Marfan syndrome and Loeys-Dietz syndrome. No statistically significant differences in survival were found when we compared expected gender- and age-specific population survival values. CONCLUSIONS: The David operation is an excellent option for the treatment of patients with heritable thoracic aortic disease and dilatated aortic root. Surgical expertise in referral centres is essential to achieve the best long-term results.

Early- and longer-term outcomes of David versus Florida sleeve procedure: propensity-matched comparison.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare short- and longer-term outcomes of David (DV) versus Florida sleeve (FS) procedure in patients requiring valve-sparing aortic root replacement. METHODS: Between January 1996 and December 2020 285 patients received a DV procedure (median age 60 years; 26% females) and 57 patients underwent an FS procedure (median age 64 years; 19% females) in our department. Propensity score matching using patient characteristics led to 58 (DV) versus 57 (FS) patients. End points were defined as primary: freedom from aortic valve and/or aortic root-related reoperation and freedom from aortic regurgitation ≥moderate and secondary: early and late survival. RESULTS: Thirty-day mortality was 2% (DV) and 0% (FS) (P = 0.319). There was 1 early stroke in each group (P = 0.990). Follow-up was complete in 99% with only 1 patient (FS) lost. The 5- and 10-year freedom from aortic valve and/or aortic root related reoperation was 98 ± 2% and 96 ± 3% in the DV group and 92 ± 5% and 84 ± 9% in the FS group, respectively (P = 0.095). The 5- and 10-year freedom from aortic regurgitation ≥moderate was 88 ± 5% and 80 ± 8% in the DV group and 92 ± 5% and 78 ± 1% in the FS group, respectively (P = 0.782). The 5- and 10-year survival rates were 93 ± 4% and 82 ± 6% (DV) vs 75 ± 7% and 67 ± 10% (FS), respectively (P = 0.058). No case of endocarditis (DV) and 3 cases of endocarditis (FS) (P = 0.055) were observed during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Both DV and FS resulted in similar early and longer-term outcomes with a trend to slightly better performance and survival in the DV group. Florida sleeve procedure might be an alternative approach for patients with higher-risk profiles requiring valve-sparing aortic root replacement.

Planning of graft size and 3D reconstruction using virtual reality technique in aortic valve reimplantation.

Objectives: To evaluate applicability and feasibility of the virtual imaging technology for diagnosis and planning of the aortic valve sparing procedure. Methods: Pre-operative electrocardiography-gated computed tomography images of 12 adult patients with aortic root pathology were used for 3D reconstruction of the aortic root geometry. The structural analysis was conducted with focusing on spatial architecture of key aortic root structures such as the three commissures, intervalvular triangles (IVT), as well as on morphology of the aortic root base (AoB) and of the sinotubular junction (STJ). Results: In all included patients, the 3D mapping of aortic root (AoR) morphology was successfully performed. The pre-operative diameter of the AoB was 30.6 ± 2.6 mm and of the STJ 46.5 ± 7.5 mm (p < 0.001). Based on measured AoB diameter, the mean size of prosthesis used was 28.3 ± 1.37 mm. The planar arrangement of the three commissures was similar to an equilateral triangle where the three commissures were at similar distance for each individual sinus with 39.8 ± 6.64 mm for right, 37.5 ± 7.10 mm for left, and 39.2 ± 7.52 mm for non-coronary sinus (p = 0.72) subsequently. The similar height of the three IVT's with 32.6 ± 5.87 mm for right, 33.6 ± 6.14 mm for anterior, and 31.7 ± 5.83 mm for left IVT (p = 0.73) was suggestive for all three commissures being positioned in the same plane. Consequently at reimplantation, the orientation of the three commissures followed the pattern of an equilateral triangle. Conclusion: The reconstructed images revealed a detailed 3D anatomy of the aortic root, with the spatial arrangement of the intervalvular triangles, planimetric orientation of the commissures, as well as determination of the AoB and STJ diameters. Obtained information was successfully applied to pre-operative surgical planning. The reimplantation technique, the height of the reimplanted intervalvular triangles, as well as their orientation are crucial for achieving adequate aortic valve function.

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.

Assessment of long-term outcomes: aortic valve reimplantation versus aortic valve and root replacement with biological valved conduit in aortic root aneurysm with tricuspid valve.

OBJECTIVES: We compared the long-term outcomes between aortic valve reimplantation [David V (DV)] and aortic valve and root replacement with biological valved conduit [Bentall-De Bono (BD)] for the patients with aortic root aneurysm with tricuspid valve. METHODS: Among 876 patients who underwent aortic root replacement in our institution between 2005 and 2018, 371 patients who underwent DV (n = 199) or BD (n = 172) for aortic root aneurysm with tricuspid valve were retrospectively reviewed. Exclusion criteria included aortic stenosis, infective endocarditis, previous prosthetic aortic valve, bicuspid aortic valve, aortic dissection and mechanical Bentall procedure. Propensity score matching was performed based on the patient characteristics, matching 90 patients in each group. The primary end point was all-cause mortality. Secondary end points were reoperation for any cause and specifically for aortic valve-related cause. RESULTS: After propensity score matching, DV and BD groups each had 1 in-hospital mortality (1.1%). Survival at 10 years was 95.3% [95% confidence interval (CI) 85.8-98.5] in DV and 98.6% (95% CI 90.8-99.8) in BD (P = 0.345). The cumulative incidences of reoperation at 10 years in DV versus BD were 3.9% (95% CI 0.7-11.8) vs 18.1% (95% CI 6.9-33.4) for any cause (P = 0.046) and 1.9% (95% CI 0.1-8.8) vs 15.9% (95% CI 5.5-31.4) for aortic valve-related causes (P = 0.032). The reasons for valve-related reoperation were aortic insufficiency (3/5 in DV vs 5/10 in BD), aortic stenosis (0/5 vs 2/10) and infective endocarditis (2/5 vs 3/10). CONCLUSIONS: Both DV and BD procedures for patients with aortic root aneurysm with tricuspid valve resulted in excellent 10-year survival. All-cause and aortic valve-related reoperations were significantly less frequent with valve-sparing root replacement, suggesting an advantage of DV over biological BD.

Valve-sparing aortic root surgery. CON: remodeling.

The two major valve-sparing root replacement procedures, aortic valve reimplantation (reimplantation) and aortic root remodeling (remodeling), have advantages and disadvantages, which are reviewed herein. The main advantage of reimplantation is the resulting annular support, and the disadvantages are the unfavorable hemodynamics and relatively long procedure time. The main advantages of remodeling are the physiological hemodynamics and decreased procedure time, and the disadvantage is the lack of annular support. With technical advances and modifications, however, the differences between these two procedures have narrowed. Application of a graft with sinuses for reimplantation improves the hemodynamics, and addition of annuloplasty to remodeling provides the necessary annular support. Nevertheless, remodeling has some advantages because less root dissection is required and the procedure time is shorter and hemodynamically favorable. Thus, remodeling may be the procedure of choice for high-risk patients (such as those with acute aortic dissection, of advanced age, with reduced ventricular function, or undergoing a concomitant operation). Remodeling may also be best for young athletes because of the hemodynamic advantage. Regardless of the advantages and disadvantages, both procedures provide excellent clinical results in terms of late valve durability. Surgeons should be familiar with both techniques and properly match patients to the appropriate treatment.

Morphological modification of the aortic annulus in tricuspid and bicuspid valves after aortic valve reimplantation: an electrocardiography-gated computed tomography study†.

OBJECTIVES: Aortic valve-sparing operations have been shown to produce fewer valve-related complications than valve replacement. The aortic root is a morphological and functional unit in which the annulus plays an important role on dynamism, shape and geometry of the valve with different results in bicuspid aortic valves (BAVs) or tricuspid aortic valves (TAVs). The aim is to evaluate the differences in the size and shape of the aortic annulus between native BAVs and TAVs using ECG-gated computed tomography (CT) after a reimplantation procedure. METHODS: We selected 35 patients scheduled for aortic valve reimplantation who underwent good-quality preoperative and postoperative ECG-gated contrast-enhanced CT scan of the aortic root. Twenty-three patients had TAV, 8 patients type 1 BAV and 4 patients type 0 BAV. Major diameter and minor diameter, perimeter (P) and area (A) were measured. The shape of the aortic annulus was considered 'circular' or 'elliptic' according to the Ellipticity Index. We also selected a subgroup of 18 patients (9 TAVs and 9 BAVs) to evaluate annular shape and size variations through the cardiac cycle and to study the expansibility both in the preoperative and in the postoperative phases. RESULTS: Preoperative CT scans showed an elliptic shape of TAVs (Ellipticity Index 1.3 ± 0.1), a circular shape of type 0 BAVs (1.1 ± 0.1) and an intermediate behaviour of type 1 BAVs, suggesting a possible gradual spectrum of circularity from TAVs to type 1 BAVs to type 0 BAVs. Postoperative CT scans did not show any significant difference in annular shape among the 3 groups, which demonstated a similar roundness, obviating the preoperative differences. Analysing the expansibility of the aortic annulus during the cardiac cycle, we observed that it was completely absent in the preoperative phase in BAVs, while in the postoperative phase, both TAVs and BAVs showed a small but similar expansibility after the annular reduction. CONCLUSIONS: There is a possible gradual spectrum in terms of shape, from native TAVs, to type 1 BAVS to type 0 BAVs. These differences are eliminated in the postoperative phase, suggesting an active role of the annuloplasty on the geometry of the aortic annulus. The preoperative analysis showed a complete inelasticity of BAVs, which was partly restored in the postoperative phase.

Valve-sparing aortic root replacement (David I procedure) in Marfan disease: single-centre 20-year experience in more than 100 patients†.

OBJECTIVES: Valve-sparing aortic root replacement (VSARR) is recommended for patients with aortic root dilatation and preserved aortic valve cusp morphology. The durability of VSARR in Marfan patients has been questioned. The aim of our study was to establish the long-term outcomes of VSARR in Marfan patients. METHODS: Between 1993 and 2015, 582 patients underwent VSARR (David I reimplantation) at our institution. Of these patients, 104 had Marfan disease. Thirteen surgeons performed the procedures in this group. The mean follow-up time was 12 ± 5.4 years (1201 patient-years). RESULTS: Early mortality was 0.96%, and long-term survival was 91% at 10 years and 76% at 20 years in Marfan patients. Marfan patients had a significantly better survival compared to non-Marfan patients (P < 0.0001). Freedom from aortic-valve reoperation was 86% at 10 years and 80% at 20 years in Marfan patients. The reoperation rate was similar in Marfan and non-Marfan patients (P = 0.60). Morphological perioperative features (untreated prolapse, commissural plasty, cusp plasty and graft size mismatch) predicted long-term mortality (P = 0.0054). Graft size mismatch and untreated prolapse predicted structural valve deterioration (both P < 0.0001). Long-term valve function in event-free survivors was excellent [mean gradient 4.2 (2.9-6.9), 98% aortic regurgitation ≤ mild]. There were no valve-related thromboembolic or bleeding events. The endocarditis rate was 0.96%. Only 17% of the patients were on oral anticoagulants during the follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: VSARR using the David I reimplantation technique results in excellent long-term outcomes in Marfan patients. We present the longest follow-up period so far. The genetic disease does not affect long-term valve function. The durability of the repair is affected by morphological perioperative criteria depending on surgical expertise, and dedicated training is recommended.

How to perform valve sparing reimplantation in a tricuspid aortic valve.

Aortic valve sparing procedures are increasingly being used to treat aortic root pathologies. Reimplantation of the aortic valve, first described by Dr Tirone David, is a technically demanding procedure whose long-term results are critically dependent on perfect intraoperative restoration of valve anatomy and function. There exists significant variation in how this procedure is performed by different surgeons, which is likely contributory to the heterogeneity in reported results. We describe a systematic approach to aortic valve reimplantation procedure focusing on key technical aspects.