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.

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.

Effectiveness of pulmonary valve-sparing strategy for transatrial-transpulmonary repair of tetralogy of Fallot: a single institution experience.

OBJECTIVE: We report the midterm results of our strategy utilizing transatrial-transpulmonary repair for tetralogy of Fallot at a single institution in a low-middle income country. METHODS: Medical records were retrospectively reviewed for 532 consecutive patients who underwent definitive repair of tetralogy of Fallot at our institution from 2010 to 2020. RESULTS: The median age and weight of patients in the study patients were 11.6 months (interquartile range, 8.6-17.2 months) and 7.5 kg (interquartile range, 6.8-8.8 kg). The pulmonary valve annulus was preserved (no transannular patch) in 398 patients (75%) and a mini-transannular patch was utilized for 134 patients (25%). The overall survival was 98% at 1 year, and 97% at 10-years follow-up, respectively. Longer postoperative ventilation time was the only risk factor correlated to early death (p = 0.004; Odds Risk, 1.04; 95% confidence intervals, 1.01-1.07). Fourteen patients required pulmonary valve replacement (2.6%, 14/532), four required surgical resection to relieve right ventricular outflow tract obstruction (0.8%, 4/532), and freedom from reoperation of the right ventricular outflow tract was 87% at 10 years. The only risk factor for right ventricular outflow tract reoperation was a postoperative systolic pressure gradient through the right ventricular outflow tract of greater than 50 mmHg (p < 0.001; HR, 47; 95% confidence intervals, 9.1-244). In total, 94.6% (471/489) of the patients were asymptomatic at the latest follow-up without significant arrhythmia. CONCLUSION: At our institution in an low-middle income country, the transatrial-transpulmonary repair for tetralogy of Fallot has excellent midterm results with few reoperations required. Close long-term follow-up is essential for patients who undergo repair with a mini-transannular patch and may eventually require pulmonary valve replacement.

Impact of right ventriculotomy on cardiac function after pulmonary valve sparing repair of tetralogy of Fallot and double outlet right ventricle with pulmonary stenosis.

OBJECTIVES: Pulmonary valve-sparing repair of tetralogy of Fallot and double outlet right ventricle with pulmonary stenosis has the advantage of reduced incidence of late pulmonary valve regurgitation and better-preserved cardiac function. However, a right ventriculotomy is sometimes necessary in order to adequately relieve subvalvular pulmonary stenosis. We aimed to compare postoperative cardiac function and patients' symptoms between pulmonary valve-sparing repair with and without right ventriculotomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively collected data from electronic medical records of Ramathibodi Hospital from 1st January 2013 to 31st October 2023. Patients diagnosed with tetralogy of Fallot and double outlet right ventricle with pulmonary stenosis who underwent pulmonary valve-sparing repair were included. Patients who underwent other types of repairs and whose medical record data were significantly missing were excluded. Demographic data, operative, and postoperative details were collected and reviewed. RESULTS: There were 49 patients included in our study with 10 patients undergoing pulmonary valve-sparing repair with and the other 39 without right ventriculotomy. Before-discharge echocardiographic parameters were generally similar between both groups (tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion = 0.9 versus 0.89 cm, P = 0.737; pressure gradient across pulmonary valve across pulmonary valve = 24 versus 19 mmHg, P = 0.275; left ventricular end-systolic volume index = 17.84 versus 19.19 ml/m2, P = 0.437; left ventricular end-diastolic volume index = 63.79 versus 61.13 ml/m2, P = 0.436). Patients' symptoms were also not statistically different. There was no early and late death up to the end date of our study. CONCLUSIONS: Right ventriculotomy in pulmonary valve-sparing repair did not result in worse postoperative cardiac function and symptoms. This suggested that the previously thought-to-be hazardous incision could be strongly considered if mandated.

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.

Surgical dilemma - spare or replace regurgitant aortic valve: Late comparative outcomes of two strategies.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate different aortic root surgery techniques and their contemporary clinical outcomes in patients with regurgitant aortic valve and aortic root aneurysm. METHODS: The study consisted of 141 adult patients who underwent aortic valve reimplantation (David group = 73) or aortic valve replacement surgery (Bentall group = 68) for aortic valve regurgitation (AR) and dilatation of the aortic root at our institution within the same period (April 2004-October 2016). Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival and other clinically relevant outcomes between the groups. RESULTS: The completeness of clinical follow-up was 100%, with a mean time of 8.0 ± 3.8 years. Thirty-day (in-hospital) mortality rates were equivalent between groups (1.3 and 1.5%, p = 1.0). The overall survival rates at 10 years were significantly better for the David group patients comparing to Bentall group patients (95.3 ± 2.6% vs 79.7 ± 6.8%; p = 0.04) with similar freedom from AV related reoperation (94.4 ± 2.7% vs 98.5 ± 1.5%; p = 0.2). Freedom from bleeding events at 10 years was 90.7 ± 3.6% for Bentall group patients and none were observed among David group patients (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Aortic valve and root surgery can be performed with equivalent safety and efficacy using either valve-sparing (David procedure) or valve-replacing (Bentall procedure) techniques in selected patients. Furthermore, patients after the David procedure demonstrated significantly improved survival and low risk of bleeding in comparison to the Bentall procedure with an acceptable risk of reoperation at 10 years follow-up.

Preliminary results of a simplified aortic valve-sparing technique: A feasibility study.

BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE STUDY: To evaluate whether the simplified valve-sparing technique (SVST) implies clinical outcomes comparable or not with those of established David technique in the surgery of aortic root. METHODS: We collected the records of patients who had undergone aortic root surgery with the SVST or standard David technique (SDT) at our institution between January 2009 and December 2018. The primary endpoints were the incidence of all-cause death, reoperation for any reason, and postoperative complications. The secondary endpoint was the midterm incidence of reoperation for aortic valve regurgitation. RESULTS: A total of 169 patients who underwent aortic root surgery were analyzed. SDT and SVST were performed in 48 (28.4%) and in 121 (71.6%) patients, respectively. Thirty-day mortality occurred in 0% and 0.8% of patients in the SDT and SVST groups, respectively. The rate of postoperative new permanent pacemaker implantation was 6.3% (three patients) and 0.8% (one patient) in SDT and SVST cohort, respectively (p = .07). The incidence of postoperative thromboembolic stroke was 6.3% and 2.5% in SDT and SVST groups, respectively (p = .23). The median follow-up time was 29 (23-47) months. During the FU period, no differences were found between two cohorts in terms of all-cause mortality (p = .99), the incidence of reoperation (p = .19), and incidence of aortic valve regurgitation requiring reoperation (p = .58). CONCLUSIONS: The SVST appears to be safe and feasible showing early clinical results comparable to the SDT. Nevertheless, further studies with larger series and long-term follow-ups are required to demonstrate its safety and efficacy.

Preserving the pulmonary valve in Tetralogy of Fallot repair: Reconsidering the indication for valve-sparing.

BACKGROUND: Tetralogy of Fallot (TOF) repair is a frequent procedure, and although valve-sparing (VS) repair is preferred, determining which patients can successfully undergo this operation remains controversial. We sought to identify parameters to determine a selective, accurate indication for VS repair. METHODS: We reviewed 71 patients (82%) undergoing VS repair. We analyzed hemodynamic data, intraoperative reports, and follow-up echocardiography results to identify acceptable indications. Patients requiring pulmonary valve (PV) reintervention versus no reintervention were compared. RESULTS: PV annulus size at repair was z-score of -2.0 (-5.3, 1.3). Approximately half (51%) had a z-score less than -2. Cox regression results showed this was not a risk factor for reintervention (p = .59). Overall, 1-, 3-, 5-, and 10-year freedom from PV reintervention rates were 95.8%, 92.8%, 91% and 77.8%, respectively. Residual pulmonary stenosis (PS) at initial repair was relatively higher in the reintervention group compared with no reintervention group (40 [28, 51] mmHg vs. 30 [22, 37] mmHg; p = .08). For patients with residual PS, pressure gradient (PG) was consistent over time across both groups (PV reintervention: -3 [-15, 8] mmHg vs. no reintervention: 0 [-9, 8] mmHg). The risk of PV reintervention is 3.7-fold higher when the PG from intraoperative TEE is greater than 45 mmHg (p = .04). CONCLUSIONS: Our review of the midterm outcomes of expanded indication for VS suggests intraoperative decision to convert to transannular patch is warranted if intraoperative postprocedure TEE PG is greater than 45 mmHg or RV pressure is higher than half of systemic pressure to prevent reintervention.

Reply to Jasinski M et al.: "Indeed, there is still room for improvement in long-term durability of BAV repair".

We read the letter to the editor by Dr Jasinski et al. entitled "Long-term durability of valve-sparing or repair procedures in BAV-Is there room for improvement?" with great interest.

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.

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.

ULTRASONIC DECALCIFICATION OF AORTIC VALVE IN MODERN ERA: A CASE REPORT.

Aortic stenosis (AS) - a constantly progressing disease characterized by thickening and calcification of leaflets of the valve, which leads to obstruction of the blood outflow from the left ventricular (LV), inadequate cardiac output, heart failure, and even sudden death. Prevalence of stenosis consistently increases with age, 0.2% incidence observes in the 50-59 year cohort of patients and almost 10% in patients from the 80-89 year cohort. We report the case of a 78-year-old man who presented with severe aortic valve stenosis. Since conventional valve replacement was problematic because of a small annular diameter we performed ultrasonic aortic valve decalcification. As a result, the systolic pressure gradient across the aortic valve decreased from 106 mm Hg to 22 mm Hg. Our case demonstrated that even in modern era ultrasonic aortic valve decalcification can be an effective option for restoration of mobility of the aortic valve cusps. We advocate the use of it for elderly patients with small aortic annulus in which surgical or transcatheter valve replacement, valve reconstruction could be extremely difficult or unavailable and consider ultrasonic valve decalcification as an additional tool in cardiac surgeon's hands.

Outcome of valve sparing root replacement for diverse indications.

OBJECTIVES: We report the mid-term outcomes of valve-sparing aortic root replacement (VSRR) in a cohort including patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV), connective tissue disorder (CTD), aortic dissection (AD), and congenital heart disease (CHD). Design. From 2005 to 2017, 174 patients underwent VSRR with the reimplantation technique. The mean age was 46 ± 14 years. The mean follow-up time was 4.8 ± 2.8 years. The indication for operation was aortic aneurysm for 127 (73%), aortic insufficiency (AI) for 38 (22%), and AD for 9 patients (5%). Preoperatively, 53 patients (31%) had ≥ moderate AI. BAV, CTD (Marfan or Loyes-Dietz), previous Ross procedure, or CHD was present in 57 (33%), 28 (16%), 7 (4%) and 12 patients (7%), respectively. Concomitant aortic valve repair was performed for 103 patients (59%). Results. Thirty-day mortality was zero. Four patients underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR) during follow-up. Kaplan-Meier estimates for survival, freedom from AVR, and freedom from ≥ moderate AI or reoperation were 96, 98, and 97% at 5 years. There was no difference in survival, freedom from AVR, or freedom from ≥ moderate AI or reoperation in patients with and without BAV, CTD, leaflet repair, or preoperative ≥ moderate AI. In Cox regression analysis, BAV, CTD, aortic valve repair, preoperative ≥ moderate AI, or aortic dimension were not risk factors for reoperation or valve dysfunction. Conclusions. Mid-term outcomes of VSRR for patients with diverse indications in terms of survival, reoperation rate, and valve dysfunction rate were excellent in a center with a limited annual volume of VSSR.

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.

Bicuspid aortic valve repair: An ongoing struggle in material science.

BACKGROUND: Techniques and results of aortic valve repair remain challenging. AIMS: Safari et al. seek to improve aortic valve repair by either aortic patching or valve sparing root replacement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The results of bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) repair in 142 patients were examined withor without valve sparing root replacement. RESULTS: Isolated BAV repair with or without valve sparing root replacement provided goodclinical outcomes with relatively low reoperation rate and durable valve function. DISCUSSION: While clinical outcome from BAV repair was generally good, the authors have stopped pericardial patch augmentation of BAV leaflets due to suboptimal durability. CONCLUSION: Thelack of a durable valve patch material and the modest durability of BAV repairin general point out that aortic valve repair remains an ongoing struggle inmaterial science.

Longer-term outcomes after bicuspid aortic valve repair in 142 patients.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the longer-term results of bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) repair with or without aortic root replacement. METHODS: From 1999 to 2017, 142 patients with or without aortic root dilatation who underwent repair of a regurgitant BAV were included in the study. Ninety-four patients underwent isolated BAV repair (Group 1; median age 43 years) and 48 patients underwent valve-sparing aortic root replacement plus BAV repair (aortic valve reimplantation-Group 2; median age 48 years). Median clinical follow-up time was 5.9 years (range 0.5-15) in Group 1 and 3 years (range 0.5-16) in Group 2, respectively. RESULTS: In-hospital mortality was 1% in Group 1, and 2% in Group 2 (p = .6). The 5- and 10-year survival was 93 ± 2.9% and 81 ± 5.8% in Group 1 and 96 ± 3.1% and 96 ± 3.1% in Group 2, respectively (p = .31). Eleven patients of Group 1 (1.7%/patient-year) and five patients of Group 2 (2.2%/patient-year) underwent reoperation of the aortic valve (p = .5). The 5- and 10-year freedom from reoperation were 93.0 ± 2.1% and 77.1 ± 7.1% in Group 1 and 93.0 ± 5.0% and 76.7 ± 9.6% in Group 2 (p = .83), respectively. At the latest follow-up, only two patients of Group 1 and 1 patient of Group 2 had AV regurgitation = 2° (p = .7). The cumulative linearized incidence of all valve-related complications (bleeding, stroke, endocarditis, and reoperation) was 2.9%/patient-year in Group 1% and 4%/patient-year in Group 2, respectively (p = .6). CONCLUSIONS: Isolated BAV repair and combined aortic valve reimplantation plus BAV repair provide good clinical longer-term outcomes with relatively low reoperation rate and durable valve function.

Fate of mild-to-moderate bicuspid aortic valve disease untreated during ascending aorta replacement.

BACKGROUND: Bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) is the most common congenital heart defect and it is responsible for an increased risk of developing aortic valve and ascending aorta complications. In case of mild to moderate BAV disease in patients undergoing supracoronary ascending aorta replacement, it is unclear whether a concomitant aortic valve replacement should be performed. METHODS: From June 2002 to January 2020, 75 patients with mild-to-moderate BAV regurgitation (±mild-to-moderate stenosis) who underwent isolated supracoronary ascending aorta replacement were retrospectively analyzed. Clinical and echocardiographic follow-up was 100% complete (mean: 7.4 ± 3.9 years, max: 16.4). Kaplan-Meier estimates were employed to analyze long-term survival. Cumulative incidence function (CIF) for time to reoperation, recurrence of aortic regurgitation (AR) ≥3+ and aortic stenosis (AS) greater than moderate, with death as competing risk, were computed. RESULTS: There was no hospital mortality and no cardiac death occurred. Overall survival at 12 years was 97.4 ± 2.5%, 95% confidence interval (CI: 83.16-99.63). At follow-up there were no cases of aortic root surgery whereas three patients underwent AV replacement. At 12 years the CIF of reoperation was 2.6 ± 2.5%, 95% CI [0.20-11.53]. At follow-up, AR 3+/4+ was present in 1 pt and AS greater than moderate in 3. At 12 years the CIF of AR more than 2+/4+ was 5.1 ± 4.98% and of AS more than moderate 6.9 ± 3.8%. CONCLUSIONS: In our study mild to moderate regurgitation of a BAV did not do significantly worse at least up to 10 years after isolated supracoronary ascending aorta replacement.

Prosthetic valve sparing aortic root replacement-A persuasive option in well-functioning aortic valve prosthesis.

OBJECTIVES: Only limited data is available on prosthetic valve sparing aortic root replacement after aortic valve replacement. The aim of the present study was to assess the short- and midterm outcomes of the patients who underwent such procedures. METHODS: From June 2004 to March 2018, 21 patients underwent this procedure. The mean age was 51.2 ± 10.2 years with a male predominance (85.7%). The mean time interval from aortic valve replacement to the present surgery was 10.62 years. RESULTS: One patient died in immediate postoperative period who was taken up for emergency surgery-acute type A aortic dissection. Kaplan-Meier estimates of 1, 3, and 5 year survival were 95.2% ± 0.04%, 85.7% ± 0.07% and 85.7% ± 0.07%, respectively. No cardiac or aortic reinterventions were performed during follow up with a 100% freedom from reoperation at 5 years. Fifteen patients (71.43%) had aortopathy and had borderline pathology at the time of first surgery, with all of them having a tear either in the aortic sinuses or pervious aortotomy site. CONCLUSION: The favorable short and midterm results suggests that prosthetic valve sparing aortic root replacement is a valid option when possible. Utmost care has to be taken at the primary surgery especially in patients with aortopathy, trying to avoid the need for a second surgery.

Outcomes in techniques of valve sparing aortic root replacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare clinical outcomes of reimplantation versus remodeling in patients undergoing valve-sparing aortic root replacement (VSRR) surgery. METHOD: Electronic database search at PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Ovid, and Google scholar was performed from inception to January 2020. Primary outcomes were aortic valve (AV) reintervention and postoperative grade of aortic insufficiency (AI) while secondary outcomes were 30-day mortality, reoperation for bleeding, and operative times. RESULTS: A total of 21 articles met the inclusion criteria. A total of 1283 patients had reimplantation while 1150 had remodeling. No difference in preoperative demographics was noted except reimplantation patients were younger (48 ± 16 vs. 56 ± 15 years; p < .00001). The cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic cross-clamp times were shorter in the remodeling cohort (168 ± 38 vs. 150 ± 37 min; p = .0001 and 133 ± 31 vs. 112 ± 30 min; p = .0002, respectively). No difference in concomitant total arch surgery (14% in reimplantation vs. 15% in remodeling; p = .53). Postoperatively, there were similar stroke rates (3% in both cohorts; p = .54), rates of reoperation for bleeding (9% in reimplantation vs. 12% in remodeling; p = .88), and 30-day mortality (3% in reimplantation vs. 4% in remodeling; p = .96). No difference in early AV reintervention (1% in reimplantation vs. 2% in remodeling; p = .07), and late AV reintervention (4% in reimplantation vs. 7% in remodeling; p = .07). The AI of +2 grade was significantly lower in the reimplantation cohort (5% vs. 8%; p = .01). CONCLUSION: Our study shows comparable clinical outcomes between both techniques. The practice of each technique is largely center and surgeon dependent. Larger sample size cohorts with minimal confounding factors are required to confirm the above findings.