OBJECTIVE: Decision making regarding the management of the ascending aorta (AA) in patients with a bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) undergoing valve surgery has hardly been individualized and remains controversial. We analyzed our individualized, multifactorial approach, focusing on the BAV phenotype. METHODS: In 1362 patients (1044 men) undergoing aortic valve surgery, the BAV phenotypes were intraoperatively classified and retrospectively analyzed. The mean follow-up was 5.4±3.6 years (range, 0-14; 7334 patient-years), and the data were 96.5% complete. The individualized AA management decision process mainly included the AA diameter, age, body surface area, macroscopic AA configuration, and the perceived tissue strength of the aortic wall resulting in 3 AA treatment groups: no intervention, aortoplasty (AoP), and AA replacement (AAR). RESULTS: In 906 patients (66.5%), no intervention was performed and 172 (12.6%) and 284 (20.9%) underwent AoP and AAR, respectively. The hospital mortality was 1.1% for no intervention, 0.6% for AoP, and 0.4% for AAR (P=.4). The 10-year survival was similar for all 3 groups and comparable to that of the general population. Five reoperations on the AA occurred, 4 in the no intervention and 1 in the AoP group. BAV type 2/unicuspid patients were younger and more had undergone AAR in absolute numbers and after allowing for the AA diameter. Also, in patients with BAV type 1 LR and regurgitation, AAR was performed more often. CONCLUSIONS: The individualized, multifactorial management of AA in patients with BAV during aortic valve surgery leads to excellent results. The threshold AA diameter for intervention (AoP or AAR) varied from 34 to 51 mm (mean, 43.9). BAV type 2/unicuspid and BAV type 1 LR with regurgitation emerged as determinants for more liberal AAR in our practice. Longer term follow-up is necessary to confirm our conclusions.
OBJECTIVE: Decision making regarding the management of the ascending aorta (AA) in patients with a bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) undergoing valve surgery has hardly been individualized and remains controversial. We analyzed our individualized, multifactorial approach, focusing on the BAV phenotype. METHODS: In 1362 patients (1044 men) undergoing aortic valve surgery, the BAV phenotypes were intraoperatively classified and retrospectively analyzed. The mean follow-up was 5.4±3.6 years (range, 0-14; 7334 patient-years), and the data were 96.5% complete. The individualized AA management decision process mainly included the AA diameter, age, body surface area, macroscopic AA configuration, and the perceived tissue strength of the aortic wall resulting in 3 AA treatment groups: no intervention, aortoplasty (AoP), and AA replacement (AAR). RESULTS: In 906 patients (66.5%), no intervention was performed and 172 (12.6%) and 284 (20.9%) underwent AoP and AAR, respectively. The hospital mortality was 1.1% for no intervention, 0.6% for AoP, and 0.4% for AAR (P=.4). The 10-year survival was similar for all 3 groups and comparable to that of the general population. Five reoperations on the AA occurred, 4 in the no intervention and 1 in the AoP group. BAV type 2/unicuspid patients were younger and more had undergone AAR in absolute numbers and after allowing for the AA diameter. Also, in patients with BAV type 1 LR and regurgitation, AAR was performed more often. CONCLUSIONS: The individualized, multifactorial management of AA in patients with BAV during aortic valve surgery leads to excellent results. The threshold AA diameter for intervention (AoP or AAR) varied from 34 to 51 mm (mean, 43.9). BAV type 2/unicuspid and BAV type 1 LR with regurgitation emerged as determinants for more liberal AAR in our practice. Longer term follow-up is necessary to confirm our conclusions.
Authors: Julio Garcia; Alex J Barker; Ian Murphy; Kelly Jarvis; Susanne Schnell; Jeremy D Collins; James C Carr; S Chris Malaisrie; Michael Markl Journal: Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2015-09-15 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: I G Murphy; J Collins; A Powell; M Markl; P McCarthy; S C Malaisrie; J C Carr; A J Barker Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2017-03-15 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Marie Billaud; Julie A Phillippi; Mary P Kotlarczyk; Jennifer C Hill; Bradley W Ellis; Claudette M St Croix; Nadiezhda Cantu-Medéllin; Eric E Kelley; Thomas G Gleason Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2017-05-25 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Michael A Borger; Paul W M Fedak; Elizabeth H Stephens; Thomas G Gleason; Evaldas Girdauskas; John S Ikonomidis; Ali Khoynezhad; Samuel C Siu; Subodh Verma; Michael D Hope; Duke E Cameron; Donald F Hammer; Joseph S Coselli; Marc R Moon; Thoralf M Sundt; Alex J Barker; Michael Markl; Alessandro Della Corte; Hector I Michelena; John A Elefteriades Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2018-08 Impact factor: 5.209