Literature DB >> 28498897

Which technique of cusp repair is durable in reimplantation procedure?

Hiroshi Tanaka1, Hiroaki Takahashi1, Takeshi Inoue1, Takashi Matsueda1, Tatsuya Oda1, Noriyuki Abe1, Yoshikatsu Nomura1, Yasuko Gotake1, Yutaka Okita1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to ascertain the durability of cusp repair techniques used in reimplantation procedures.
METHODS: Between 2000 and 2015, 249 patients (mean age, 49 ± 17 years) with aortic insufficiency underwent the reimplantation procedure. The pathology was acute aortic dissection in 24 and non-dissection in 225 patients. Preoperative aortic regurgitation (AR) was absent in 9, 1+ in 19, 2+ in 20, 3+ in 71 and 4+ in 120 patients. The mean aortic root and ascending aortic diameters were 47 ± 9 mm and 38 ± 7 mm, respectively. The following techniques of cusp repair were used: none (83), central plication (130), free margin reinforcement (57) and patch repair (19). Annual echocardiography was performed. Freedom from moderate aortic insufficiency and aortic valve reoperation were calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Factors influencing the freedom from moderate or severe AR were calculated by proportional hazard analysis.
RESULTS: Mean follow-up period was 56  ±  44 months. Freedom from moderate or severe AR was 82%±3% and 77% ± 4% at 5 and 8 years, respectively, whereas freedom from aortic valve reoperation was 93%±8% and 87% ± 3% at 5 and 8 years, respectively. Recurrent AR and infection were causes of reoperation in 13 and 3 patients, respectively. Preoperative cusp prolapse, technique of free margin reinforcement used and patch repair were significant factors for recurrent AR by proportional hazard analysis. Central plication was not a significant factor for recurrent AR.
CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative cusp prolapse was a risk factor, whereas central plication was not a risk factor for recurrent AR. Free margin reinforcement had a positive effect, whereas patch repair had a negative effect on aortic valve durability.
© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Aorta; Aortic; Reimplantation; Valve

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28498897     DOI: 10.1093/ejcts/ezx034

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Cardiothorac Surg        ISSN: 1010-7940            Impact factor:   4.191


  3 in total

Review 1.  Cardiac surgery 2017 reviewed.

Authors:  Torsten Doenst; Hristo Kirov; Alexandros Moschovas; David Gonzalez-Lopez; Rauf Safarov; Mahmoud Diab; Steffen Bargenda; Gloria Faerber
Journal:  Clin Res Cardiol       Date:  2018-05-17       Impact factor: 5.460

2.  Comparison of outcomes following isolated repair of tricuspid versus bicuspid aortic valves.

Authors:  Anatol Prinzing; Johannes Boehm; Magdalena Erlebach; Konstantinos Sideris; Ruediger Lange; Markus Krane
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2020-07       Impact factor: 2.895

3.  Valve-sparing aortic root replacement and aortic valve repair for a 2-year-old girl with Loeys-Dietz syndrome.

Authors:  Shuichi Shiraishi; Yutaka Okita; Maya Watanabe; Masanori Tsuchida
Journal:  Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg       Date:  2022-06-01
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.