OBJECTIVES: To compare long-term outcomes after bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) repair utilizing the Cabrol annuloplasty versus valve sparing Reimplantation technique. METHODS: From 1996 to 2018, 340 consecutive patients underwent BAV repair. Eighty underwent Cabrol annuloplasty and 189 underwent Reimplantation. Exclusion criteria were re-repairs (n = 6), active endocarditis (n = 4), no annuloplasty (n = 41) and ring or suture annuloplasty (n = 20). We compared both groups for survival, reoperations, valve related events and recurrent severe aortic regurgitation (AR > 2+). Inverse probability weighting (IPW) was used to balance the 2 groups. Cox regression analysis was used to identify outcome predictors. RESULTS: After weighting, pre- and intraoperative characteristics were similar between groups, except for aorta replacement techniques and operative time, which was longer in the Reimplantation group (P < 0.001). At 12 years, overall survival was similar between groups (IPW: Cabrol 97 ± 2% vs Reimplantation 94 ± 3%, P = 0.52). Freedom from reoperation and freedom from AR > 2+ were significantly lower in the Cabrol group (reoperation IPW: 69 ± 9% vs 91 ± 4%, P = 0.004 and AR > 2+ IPW: 71 ± 8% vs 97 ± 2%, P < 0.001). The Reimplantation technique was the only independent predictor of reoperation (hazard ratio 0.31; confidence interval 0.19-0.7; P = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, comparing 2 annuloplasty strategies for BAV repair, we found statistically significant differences in long-term durability favouring the Reimplantation technique, and no differences in overall survival. The results support our current strategy of Reimplantation technique and repair of AR in patients with BAV. Cabrol annuloplasty is obsolete and should be generally abandoned in patients undergoing BAV repair for AR.
OBJECTIVES: To compare long-term outcomes after bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) repair utilizing the Cabrol annuloplasty versus valve sparing Reimplantation technique. METHODS: From 1996 to 2018, 340 consecutive patients underwent BAV repair. Eighty underwent Cabrol annuloplasty and 189 underwent Reimplantation. Exclusion criteria were re-repairs (n = 6), active endocarditis (n = 4), no annuloplasty (n = 41) and ring or suture annuloplasty (n = 20). We compared both groups for survival, reoperations, valve related events and recurrent severe aortic regurgitation (AR > 2+). Inverse probability weighting (IPW) was used to balance the 2 groups. Cox regression analysis was used to identify outcome predictors. RESULTS: After weighting, pre- and intraoperative characteristics were similar between groups, except for aorta replacement techniques and operative time, which was longer in the Reimplantation group (P < 0.001). At 12 years, overall survival was similar between groups (IPW: Cabrol 97 ± 2% vs Reimplantation 94 ± 3%, P = 0.52). Freedom from reoperation and freedom from AR > 2+ were significantly lower in the Cabrol group (reoperation IPW: 69 ± 9% vs 91 ± 4%, P = 0.004 and AR > 2+ IPW: 71 ± 8% vs 97 ± 2%, P < 0.001). The Reimplantation technique was the only independent predictor of reoperation (hazard ratio 0.31; confidence interval 0.19-0.7; P = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, comparing 2 annuloplasty strategies for BAV repair, we found statistically significant differences in long-term durability favouring the Reimplantation technique, and no differences in overall survival. The results support our current strategy of Reimplantation technique and repair of AR in patients with BAV. Cabrol annuloplasty is obsolete and should be generally abandoned in patients undergoing BAV repair for AR.