OBJECTIVES: Only limited data is available on prosthetic valve sparing aortic root replacement after aortic valve replacement. The aim of the present study was to assess the short- and midterm outcomes of the patients who underwent such procedures. METHODS: From June 2004 to March 2018, 21 patients underwent this procedure. The mean age was 51.2 ± 10.2 years with a male predominance (85.7%). The mean time interval from aortic valve replacement to the present surgery was 10.62 years. RESULTS: One patient died in immediate postoperative period who was taken up for emergency surgery-acute type A aortic dissection. Kaplan-Meier estimates of 1, 3, and 5 year survival were 95.2% ± 0.04%, 85.7% ± 0.07% and 85.7% ± 0.07%, respectively. No cardiac or aortic reinterventions were performed during follow up with a 100% freedom from reoperation at 5 years. Fifteen patients (71.43%) had aortopathy and had borderline pathology at the time of first surgery, with all of them having a tear either in the aortic sinuses or pervious aortotomy site. CONCLUSION: The favorable short and midterm results suggests that prosthetic valve sparing aortic root replacement is a valid option when possible. Utmost care has to be taken at the primary surgery especially in patients with aortopathy, trying to avoid the need for a second surgery.
OBJECTIVES: Only limited data is available on prosthetic valve sparing aortic root replacement after aortic valve replacement. The aim of the present study was to assess the short- and midterm outcomes of the patients who underwent such procedures. METHODS: From June 2004 to March 2018, 21 patients underwent this procedure. The mean age was 51.2 ± 10.2 years with a male predominance (85.7%). The mean time interval from aortic valve replacement to the present surgery was 10.62 years. RESULTS: One patientdied in immediate postoperative period who was taken up for emergency surgery-acute type A aortic dissection. Kaplan-Meier estimates of 1, 3, and 5 year survival were 95.2% ± 0.04%, 85.7% ± 0.07% and 85.7% ± 0.07%, respectively. No cardiac or aortic reinterventions were performed during follow up with a 100% freedom from reoperation at 5 years. Fifteen patients (71.43%) had aortopathy and had borderline pathology at the time of first surgery, with all of them having a tear either in the aortic sinuses or pervious aortotomy site. CONCLUSION: The favorable short and midterm results suggests that prosthetic valve sparing aortic root replacement is a valid option when possible. Utmost care has to be taken at the primary surgery especially in patients with aortopathy, trying to avoid the need for a second surgery.