Full-root Aortic Valve Replacement by Stentless Aortic Xenografts in Patients with Small Aortic Roots.

In patients with small aortic roots who need an aortic valve replacement with biological valve substitutes, the implantation of the stented pericardial valve might not meet the functional needs. The implantation of a too-small stented pericardial valve, leading to an effective orifice area indexed to a body surface area less than 0.85 cm2/m2, is regarded as prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM). A PPM negatively affects the regression of left ventricular hypertrophy and thus the normalization of left ventricular function and the alleviation of symptoms. Persistent left ventricular hypertrophy is associated with an increased risk of arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death. In the case of predictable PPM, there are three options: 1) accept the PPM resulting from the implantation of a stented pericardial valve when comorbidities of the patient forbid the more technically demanding operative technique of implanting a larger prosthesis, 2) enlarge the aortic root to accommodate a larger stented valve substitute, or 3) implant a stentless biological valve or a homograft. Compared to classical aortic valve replacement with stented pericardial valves, the full-root implantation of stentless aortic xenografts offers the possibility of implanting a 3-4 mm larger valve in a given patient, thus allowing significant reduction in transvalvular gradients. However, a number of cardiac surgeons are reluctant to transform a classical aortic valve replacement with stented pericardial valves into the more technically challenging full-root implantation of stentless aortic xenografts. Given the potential hemodynamic advantages of stentless aortic xenografts, we have adopted full-root implantation to avoid PPM in patients with small aortic roots necessitating an aortic valve replacement. Here, we describe in detail a technique for the full-root implantation of stentless aortic xenografts, with emphasis on the management of the proximal suture line and coronary anastomoses. Limitations of this technique and alternative options are discussed.