BACKGROUND: The feasibility of valve-sparing aortic root procedures (David) in certain high-risk situations has been questioned. We sought to determine the safety of the David procedure in the following high-risk subgroups: acute type A dissection, severe aortic insufficiency (AI), and reoperations. METHODS: From 2005 through 2007, 110 root replacements were performed for the above criteria: 73 root replacements with a composite valve-conduit (Bentall) and 37 David procedures. The reimplantation technique was used in all 37 David patients, with 7 requiring aortic cusp repair. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in preoperative or intraoperative variables between the groups, with the exception of cross-clamp time, which was longer for David patients. There was a slight, but nonsignificant increase in mortality among Bentall patients (8.2% [6 of 73]) compared with David patients (5.4% [2 of 37], p = 0.59]. There were no differences with respect to postoperative stroke, renal failure, or respiratory failure. Predischarge echocardiogram in the surviving 35 David patients demonstrated no AI in 25 patients and trace/mild AI in 10. Freedom from AVR at a mean follow-up of 8.8 months (range, 1 to 40) was 94.3% (33 of 35). One patient required AVR because of endocarditis at 9 months, and 1 had severe AI 13 months postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: Valve-sparing aortic root replacement can be performed safely in the setting of acute dissection, severe AI, and reoperations with acceptable early results. Long-term follow-up is needed to determine the durability of repair in these high-risk groups. 2010 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: The feasibility of valve-sparing aortic root procedures (David) in certain high-risk situations has been questioned. We sought to determine the safety of the David procedure in the following high-risk subgroups: acute type A dissection, severe aortic insufficiency (AI), and reoperations. METHODS: From 2005 through 2007, 110 root replacements were performed for the above criteria: 73 root replacements with a composite valve-conduit (Bentall) and 37 David procedures. The reimplantation technique was used in all 37 David patients, with 7 requiring aortic cusp repair. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in preoperative or intraoperative variables between the groups, with the exception of cross-clamp time, which was longer for David patients. There was a slight, but nonsignificant increase in mortality among Bentall patients (8.2% [6 of 73]) compared with David patients (5.4% [2 of 37], p = 0.59]. There were no differences with respect to postoperative stroke, renal failure, or respiratory failure. Predischarge echocardiogram in the surviving 35 David patients demonstrated no AI in 25 patients and trace/mild AI in 10. Freedom from AVR at a mean follow-up of 8.8 months (range, 1 to 40) was 94.3% (33 of 35). One patient required AVR because of endocarditis at 9 months, and 1 had severe AI 13 months postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: Valve-sparing aortic root replacement can be performed safely in the setting of acute dissection, severe AI, and reoperations with acceptable early results. Long-term follow-up is needed to determine the durability of repair in these high-risk groups. 2010 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors: Manuel Caceres; Yicheng Ma; J Scott Rankin; Paramita Saha-Chaudhuri; Brian R Englum; James S Gammie; Rakesh M Suri; Vinod H Thourani; Fardad Esmailian; Lawrence S Czer; John D Puskas; Lars G Svensson Journal: Eur J Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2014-03-17 Impact factor: 4.191
Authors: Servet Ergün; Mehmet Dedemoğlu; Murat Bülent Rabuş; Baburhan Özbek; Mustafa Mert Özgür; Mehmet Altuğ Tuncer; Mehmet Balkanay; Mehmet Kaan Kirali Journal: Cardiovasc J Afr Date: 2018-06-26 Impact factor: 1.167