Faraz Longi1, Felix Orelaru2, Jeffrey Clemence1, Aroma Naeem1, Xiaoting Wu1, Bo Yang3. 1. Department of Cardiac Surgery, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 2. Department of General Surgery, St. Joseph Mercy, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 3. Department of Cardiac Surgery, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Electronic address: boya@med.umich.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is little evidence on managing the proximal aorta of 4.0-4.5 cm during aortic valve replacement (AVR) in bicuspid aortic valve patients. METHODS: A total of 431 patients between 1993 and 2019 underwent either an isolated AVR, AVR + concomitant ascending aorta replacement, or aortic root replacement. We divided patients into native root dilation (4.0-4.5 cm, n = 121) vs root control groups (<4.0 cm, n = 238), native ascending dilation (4.0-4.5 cm, n = 50) vs ascending control groups (<4.0 cm, n = 166), or proximal dilation (root or ascending aorta 4.0-4.5 cm, n = 160) and proximal control groups (both root and ascending aorta <4.0 cm, n = 272). RESULTS: Growth rate was similar between the root dilation and control groups, (both were 0.1 mm/y, P = .56). The ascending dilation group had an aorta growth rate of 0.0 mm/y after AVR or root replacement, which was significantly different from the ascending control group (0.2 mm/y), P = .01. Furthermore, growth rate was similar between the proximal dilation (combined root or ascending dilation) and control group (both were 0.1 mm/y, P = .20). There were only 2 ascending aortic aneurysm repairs after AVR in the whole cohort. The long-term survival was similar between the root or ascending dilation groups vs root or ascending control groups, and between the proximal dilation and control groups. Multivariable Cox regression confirmed aortic root or ascending dilation was not a significant risk factor of long-term mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings supported not replacing a 4.0-4.5 cm proximal thoracic aorta, including aortic root and ascending aorta, at the time of AVR for bicuspid aortic valve patients.
BACKGROUND: There is little evidence on managing the proximal aorta of 4.0-4.5 cm during aortic valve replacement (AVR) in bicuspid aortic valve patients. METHODS: A total of 431 patients between 1993 and 2019 underwent either an isolated AVR, AVR + concomitant ascending aorta replacement, or aortic root replacement. We divided patients into native root dilation (4.0-4.5 cm, n = 121) vs root control groups (<4.0 cm, n = 238), native ascending dilation (4.0-4.5 cm, n = 50) vs ascending control groups (<4.0 cm, n = 166), or proximal dilation (root or ascending aorta 4.0-4.5 cm, n = 160) and proximal control groups (both root and ascending aorta <4.0 cm, n = 272). RESULTS: Growth rate was similar between the root dilation and control groups, (both were 0.1 mm/y, P = .56). The ascending dilation group had an aorta growth rate of 0.0 mm/y after AVR or root replacement, which was significantly different from the ascending control group (0.2 mm/y), P = .01. Furthermore, growth rate was similar between the proximal dilation (combined root or ascending dilation) and control group (both were 0.1 mm/y, P = .20). There were only 2 ascending aortic aneurysm repairs after AVR in the whole cohort. The long-term survival was similar between the root or ascending dilation groups vs root or ascending control groups, and between the proximal dilation and control groups. Multivariable Cox regression confirmed aortic root or ascending dilation was not a significant risk factor of long-term mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings supported not replacing a 4.0-4.5 cm proximal thoracic aorta, including aortic root and ascending aorta, at the time of AVR for bicuspid aortic valve patients.
Authors: Joseph E Pichamuthu; Julie A Phillippi; Deborah A Cleary; Douglas W Chew; John Hempel; David A Vorp; Thomas G Gleason Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2013-09-07 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Tsuyoshi Kaneko; Prem Shekar; Vladimir Ivkovic; Nicholas T Longford; Chuan-Chin Huang; Martin I Sigurdsson; Robert C Neely; Maroun Yammine; Julius I Ejiofor; Vanessa Montiero Vieira; Jasmine T Shahram; Karam M Habchi; Gregory W Malzberg; Peter S Martin; Jordan Bloom; Eric M Isselbacher; J Daniel Muehlschlegel; Thoralf M Sundt; Simon C Body Journal: Eur J Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2018-03-01 Impact factor: 4.191
Authors: Hector I Michelena; Amber D Khanna; Douglas Mahoney; Edit Margaryan; Yan Topilsky; Rakesh M Suri; Ben Eidem; William D Edwards; Thoralf M Sundt; Maurice Enriquez-Sarano Journal: JAMA Date: 2011-09-14 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Sorel Goland; Lawrence S C Czer; Michele A De Robertis; James Mirocha; Robert M Kass; Gregory P Fontana; Wen Chang; Alfredo Trento Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Michael A Borger; Mark Preston; Joan Ivanov; Paul W M Fedak; Piroze Davierwala; Susan Armstrong; Tirone E David Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2004-11 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Claudio F Russo; Simone Mazzetti; Andrea Garatti; Elena Ribera; Angela Milazzo; Giuseppe Bruschi; Marco Lanfranconi; Tiziano Colombo; Ettore Vitali Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Nikolaos Tzemos; Judith Therrien; James Yip; George Thanassoulis; Sonia Tremblay; Michal T Jamorski; Gary D Webb; Samuel C Siu Journal: JAMA Date: 2008-09-17 Impact factor: 56.272
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