BACKGROUND: Aortic root replacement remains a challenging surgical procedure. A variety of techniques and prosthetic devices have thus far been used. In order to assess the performance of the Carboseal (Sultzer Carbomedics, Inc, Austin TX) composite graft, review of the experience with composite root replacement was undertaken. METHODS: Between January 1979 and December 1998, 273 patients underwent composite aortic root replacement. One-hundred-six received the Carboseal composite prosthesis (group 1) and 84 other types of composite grafts (group 2). Demographic and operative variables were similar in the 2 patient groups, except for an older mean age in group 1 (58+/-12 versus 50+/-12 years, p = 0.001). RESULTS: Operative mortality was lower in group 1 patients (3 of 106, 3% versus 10 of 84, 12%, p = 0.04). Follow-up of survivors was longer in group 2 due to more recent adoption of the Carboseal grafts (93+/-57 versus 36+/-23 months, p = 0.01). Late mortality was higher in group 2 (3 of 103, 3% versus 13 of 74, 18%, p = 0.04), with higher prevalence of prosthetic-related complications (2 of 103, 2% versus 12 of 74, 15%, p = 0.002). Reoperation was more prevalent in group 2 (1 of 103, 1% versus 5 of 74, 8%, p = 0.04), and limited to patients having root replacement using the inclusion technique. Functional status of survivors was comparable in the 2 groups (83 of 103, 80% versus 45 of 74, 61% of patients in New York Heart Association class I, p = 0.1). CONCLUSIONS: Aortic root replacement using the Carboseal composite graft offers excellent long-term results, with negligible prevalence of prosthetic-related complications. Superior performance compared to other available composite grafts in the present series may be influenced by more recent adoption of the Carboseal conduit and concomitant uniform adoption of coronary button technique.
BACKGROUND: Aortic root replacement remains a challenging surgical procedure. A variety of techniques and prosthetic devices have thus far been used. In order to assess the performance of the Carboseal (Sultzer Carbomedics, Inc, Austin TX) composite graft, review of the experience with composite root replacement was undertaken. METHODS: Between January 1979 and December 1998, 273 patients underwent composite aortic root replacement. One-hundred-six received the Carboseal composite prosthesis (group 1) and 84 other types of composite grafts (group 2). Demographic and operative variables were similar in the 2 patient groups, except for an older mean age in group 1 (58+/-12 versus 50+/-12 years, p = 0.001). RESULTS: Operative mortality was lower in group 1 patients (3 of 106, 3% versus 10 of 84, 12%, p = 0.04). Follow-up of survivors was longer in group 2 due to more recent adoption of the Carboseal grafts (93+/-57 versus 36+/-23 months, p = 0.01). Late mortality was higher in group 2 (3 of 103, 3% versus 13 of 74, 18%, p = 0.04), with higher prevalence of prosthetic-related complications (2 of 103, 2% versus 12 of 74, 15%, p = 0.002). Reoperation was more prevalent in group 2 (1 of 103, 1% versus 5 of 74, 8%, p = 0.04), and limited to patients having root replacement using the inclusion technique. Functional status of survivors was comparable in the 2 groups (83 of 103, 80% versus 45 of 74, 61% of patients in New York Heart Association class I, p = 0.1). CONCLUSIONS: Aortic root replacement using the Carboseal composite graft offers excellent long-term results, with negligible prevalence of prosthetic-related complications. Superior performance compared to other available composite grafts in the present series may be influenced by more recent adoption of the Carboseal conduit and concomitant uniform adoption of coronary button technique.