OBJECTIVE: For patients with aortic root pathology and aortic valve regurgitation, aortic valve replacement is problematic because no durable bioprosthesis exists, and mechanical valves require lifetime anticoagulation. This study sought to assess outcomes of combined aortic valve and root repair, including comparison with matched bioprosthesis aortic valve replacement. METHODS: From November 1990 to January 2005, 366 patients underwent modified David reimplantation (n = 72), root remodeling (n = 72), or valve repair with sinotubular junction tailoring (n = 222). Active follow-up was 99% complete, with a mean of 5.6 ± 4.0 years (maximum 17 years); follow-up for vital status averaged 8.5 ± 3.6 years (maximum 19 years). Propensity-adjusted models were developed for fair comparison of outcomes. RESULTS: Thirty-day and 5-, 10-, and 15-year survivals were 98%, 86%, 74%, and 58%, respectively, similar to that of the US matched population and better than that after bioprosthesis aortic valve replacement. Propensity-score-adjusted survival was similar across procedures (P > .3). Freedom from reoperation at 30 days and 5 and 10 years was 99%, 92%, and 89%, respectively, and was similar across procedures (P > .3) after propensity-score adjustment. Patients with tricuspid aortic valves were more likely to be free of reoperation than those with bicuspid valves at 10 years (93% vs 77%, P = .002), equivalent to bioprosthesis aortic valve replacement and superior after 12 years. Bioprostheses increasingly deteriorated after 7 years, and hazard functions for reoperation crossed at 7 years. CONCLUSIONS: Valve preservation (rather than replacement) and matching root procedures have excellent early and long-term results, with increasing survival benefit at 7 years and fewer reoperations by 12 years. We recommend this procedure for experienced surgical teams.
OBJECTIVE: For patients with aortic root pathology and aortic valve regurgitation, aortic valve replacement is problematic because no durable bioprosthesis exists, and mechanical valves require lifetime anticoagulation. This study sought to assess outcomes of combined aortic valve and root repair, including comparison with matched bioprosthesis aortic valve replacement. METHODS: From November 1990 to January 2005, 366 patients underwent modified David reimplantation (n = 72), root remodeling (n = 72), or valve repair with sinotubular junction tailoring (n = 222). Active follow-up was 99% complete, with a mean of 5.6 ± 4.0 years (maximum 17 years); follow-up for vital status averaged 8.5 ± 3.6 years (maximum 19 years). Propensity-adjusted models were developed for fair comparison of outcomes. RESULTS: Thirty-day and 5-, 10-, and 15-year survivals were 98%, 86%, 74%, and 58%, respectively, similar to that of the US matched population and better than that after bioprosthesis aortic valve replacement. Propensity-score-adjusted survival was similar across procedures (P > .3). Freedom from reoperation at 30 days and 5 and 10 years was 99%, 92%, and 89%, respectively, and was similar across procedures (P > .3) after propensity-score adjustment. Patients with tricuspid aortic valves were more likely to be free of reoperation than those with bicuspid valves at 10 years (93% vs 77%, P = .002), equivalent to bioprosthesis aortic valve replacement and superior after 12 years. Bioprostheses increasingly deteriorated after 7 years, and hazard functions for reoperation crossed at 7 years. CONCLUSIONS: Valve preservation (rather than replacement) and matching root procedures have excellent early and long-term results, with increasing survival benefit at 7 years and fewer reoperations by 12 years. We recommend this procedure for experienced surgical teams.
Authors: Pietro Giorgio Malvindi; Giuseppe Maria Raffa; Alessio Basciu; Enrico Citterio; Antioco Cappai; Diego Ornaghi; Giuseppe Tarelli; Fabrizio Settepani Journal: Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg Date: 2012-03-02
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: Charles M Wojnarski; Lars G Svensson; Eric E Roselli; Jay J Idrees; Ashley M Lowry; John Ehrlinger; Gösta B Pettersson; A Marc Gillinov; Douglas R Johnston; Edward G Soltesz; Jose L Navia; Donald F Hammer; Brian Griffin; Maran Thamilarasan; Vidyasagar Kalahasti; Joseph F Sabik; Eugene H Blackstone; Bruce W Lytle Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2015-07-22 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Lars G Svensson; Saila T Pillai; Jeevanantham Rajeswaran; Milind Y Desai; Brian Griffin; Richard Grimm; Donald F Hammer; Maran Thamilarasan; Eric E Roselli; Gösta B Pettersson; A Marc Gillinov; Jose L Navia; Nicholas G Smedira; Joseph F Sabik; Bruce W Lytle; Eugene H Blackstone Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2015-11-10 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Lars G Svensson; Brad F Rosinski; Nicholas J Tucker; A Marc Gillinov; Jeevanantham Rajeswaran; Eric E Roselli; Douglas R Johnston; Milind Y Desai; Brian P Griffin; Eugene H Blackstone Journal: Aorta (Stamford) Date: 2022-08-07
Authors: J Scott Rankin; Domenico Mazzitelli; Theodor J M Fischlein; Yeong-Hoon Choi; Diana Aicher; Lawrence M Wei; Vinay Badhwar Journal: JTCVS Tech Date: 2020-01-23