Aortic root replacement with cryopreserved allograft for prosthetic valve endocarditis

BACKGROUND Our strategy has been to treat aortic prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE) with radical debridement of infected tissue and aortic root replacement with a cryopreserved aortic allograft. This study examines the effectiveness of this strategy on hospital mortality and morbidity, recurrent endocarditis, and survival. METHODS: From 1988 through 2000, 103 patients with aortic PVE underwent root replacement with a cryopreserved aortic allograft. Abscesses were present in 78%, and aortoventricular discontinuity was present in 40%. Thirty-two patients had at least one previous operation for endocarditis. In 23 patients with a history of native valve endocarditis, the allograft was implanted after one episode (17 patients), two episodes (5 patients), or three episodes of PVE (1 patient). In the 80 patients without a history of native valve endocarditis, the allograft was placed after one previous aortic valve replacement (57 patients), two (19), or three (4) previous aortic valve replacements. Among the 92 patients with positive cultures, 52 had staphylococcal organisms, 20 had streptococcal, 6 had fungal, 4 had gram-negative, and 6 had enterococcal organisms. Mean follow-up was 4.3 +/- 2.9 years. RESULTS: Hospital mortality was 3.9%. Permanent pacemakers were required in 31 patients. Survival at 1 year, 2 years, 5 years, and 10 years was 90%, 86%, 73%, and 56%, respectively, with a risk of 5.3% per year after 6 months. Four patients underwent reoperation for recurrent PVE of the allograft (95% freedom from recurrent PVE at > or = 2 years). Risk of recurrent PVE peaked at 9 months and then declined to a low level by 18 months. CONCLUSIONS: A strategy of radical debridement and aortic root replacement with a cryopreserved aortic allograft for aortic PVE is safe, effective, and recommended.     

Replacement of the aortic root for acute prosthetic valve endocarditis: prosthetic composite versus aortic allograft root replacement

OBJECTIVE: Aortic root replacement for prosthetic aortic valve endocarditis with accompanying destruction of the aortic root is a well-established surgical intervention. However, there is still no consensus whether prosthetic material or allogeneic material should be used. Here we report on our experience with prosthetic composite and aortic allograft root replacement in such patients during a 10-year interval. METHODS: From 1991 through 2001, 29 patients with prosthetic aortic valve endocarditis combined with aortic root destruction underwent reoperation at our institution. Sixteen patients received aortic root replacement with a cryopreserved aortic root allograft (group A) and 13 with a prosthetic composite graft (group B). The interval between the initial operation and reoperation was 29 months (range, 5-168 months) in group A and 55 months (range, 7-248 months) in group B. RESULTS: Hospital mortality was 18.5% (n = 5 patients, 3 in group A and 2 in group B). Median follow-up was 21 months (range, 1-48 months) for group A and 34 months (range, 1-152 months) for group B (P >.2). Survival at 1 and 5 years was 81% +/- 10% and 81% +/- 10% in group A and 85% +/- 10% and 85% +/- 10% in group B, respectively. No patient underwent reoperation for recurrent prosthetic aortic valve endocarditis. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that excellent long-term results can be achieved regardless of the material used for aortic root replacement in patients with prosthetic aortic valve endocarditis.     

A new aortoventriculoplasty for prosthetic aortic valve replacement

BACKGROUND: Konno aortoventriculoplasty demands a complex double patch reconstruction of left and right ventricular outflow tracts and is subjected to a risk of permanent heart block. A modified technique was used to overcome these difficulties.Patient and methods A 42-year-old woman with congenital aortic stenosis, a diminutive aortic annulus, and severe subaortic muscular obstruction had undergone aortic valve commissurotomy 24 years ago. At reoperation, a 19-mm St Jude Medical sizer had a very tight fit after removal of the calcified aortic valve. To enlarge the aortic annulus and septum, the pulmonary artery valve was first partly separated from the right ventricle, exposing the interventricular septum. The aortic wall, annulus, and septum were then split along the intercoronary commissure, a location that clears the aortoventriculoplasty from the path of the major conducting tissue. Once the septum was reconstructed with a Dacron patch, the enlarged orifice accepted a St Jude Medical Flex 23. The mobilized pulmonary artery valve was then sutured back to its original position, only changed by the width of the septal Dacron patch. RESULT: Discharge echocardiogram recorded a 7 mm Hg mean transprosthetic gradient with a normally functioning pulmonary valve. The electrocardiogram showed permanent sinus rhythm. CONCLUSIONS: The described aortoventriculoplasty has several advantages, including: a simple exposure obtained by partly separating the pulmonary artery valve from the right ventricle; clear septal opening landmarks that avoid the conducting tissue; easy reconstruction with a single septal patch; and an anatomically restored right ventricular outflow tract.     

Clinical outcomes after separate and composite replacement of the aortic valve and ascending aorta

Objectives

We sought to compare the clinical profile and outcomes of operations for aortic valve disease and ascending aortic aneurysm in patients treated with aortic valve replacement and supracoronary replacement of the ascending aorta or composite replacement of the aortic valve and ascending aorta (Bentall operation).

Methods

From 1990 through 2001, 133 patients had aortic valve replacement and supracoronary replacement of the ascending aorta, and 452 patients had Bentall operations. Aortic valve replacement and supracoronary replacement of the ascending aorta was performed in patients who had aortic valve disease and dilation of the ascending aorta, whereas the Bentall operation was performed in patients with aortic root abnormality and ascending aortic aneurysm. Mean follow-up was 4.6 ± 3.1 years and was 100% complete.

Results

Patients who had aortic valve replacement and supracoronary replacement of the ascending aorta were older (61 ± 13 vs 52 ± 16 years, P < .001) and more likely to have aortic stenosis, coronary artery disease, and mitral valve disease than those who had Bentall operations. The use of mechanical valves was equal in both groups (42% for aortic valve replacement and supracoronary replacement of the ascending aorta and 43% for the Bentall operation). Operative mortality was 5% for patients undergoing aortic valve replacement and supracoronary replacement of the ascending aorta and 4% for patients undergoing the Bentall operation (P = .45). Survival at 10 years was 57% ± 8% for patients undergoing aortic valve replacement and supracoronary replacement of the ascending aorta and 74% ± 4% for patients undergoing the Bentall operation (P = .04), but the type of operation had no effect on survival. Older age, moderate or severe left ventricular dysfunction, active endocarditis, previous cardiac surgery, and coronary artery disease were independent predictors of death. The freedom from reoperation at 10 years was 95% ± 5% for patients undergoing aortic valve replacement and supracoronary replacement of the ascending aorta and 94% ± 3% for patients undergoing the Bentall operation (P = .18). Reoperations were mostly because of tissue valve failure or endocarditis. The risk of valve-related complications was the same in both groups. No patient required reoperation for aortic root aneurysm after having aortic valve replacement and supracoronary replacement of the ascending aorta.

Conclusions

Aortic valve replacement and supracoronary replacement of the ascending aorta and the Bentall operation provide comparable long-term results. The Bentall operation is more appropriate for patients with aortic root abnormality and a dilated ascending aorta, whereas aortic valve replacement and supracoronary replacement of the ascending aorta is a perfectly acceptable operation for patients with aortic valve disease, normal or mildly dilated aortic sinuses, and a dilated ascending aorta.     

Aortic root replacement after operation for the ascending aorta and/or aortic valve

We reviewed ten cases who underwent aortic root replacement after operation for the ascending aorta and/or aortic valve. As initial operation, aortic valve replacement (AVR) was performed in five patients, replacement of the ascending aorta in two, original Bentall operation in two, and entry closure and suspension of the aortic valve in one. At reoperation, three patients were diagnosed as aneurysm of the ascending aorta, two were annulo-aortic ectasia, and one was acute aortic dissection, chronic dissecting aneusym, pseudoaneurysm of the ascending aorta, prosthetic valve endocarditis, and massive aortic regurgitation. Aortic root replacement was performed using mechanical valved composite graft in all cases. One patient who underwent repeat aortic root replacement for prosthetic valve endocarditis was died of septemia and ventricular fibrillation. Five patients had nine complications (two low output syndrome, respiratory failure and cerebral infarction, one gastrointestinal bleeding, septemia and ventricular fibrillation). In conclusion, aortic root replacement after operation for the ascending aorta and/or aortic valve was performed with acceptable morbidity and mortality.     

Pseudoaneurysm of ascending aorta after aortic valve replacement

A pseudoaneurysm of the ascending aorta is an unusual and potentially fatal complication after aortic surgical procedures. A contrast computed tomographic scan is the investigation of choice. Surgical treatment is mandatory. We describe the successful management of a pseudoaneurysm of the ascending aorta by instituting femorofemoral bypass and achieving hypothermic circulatory arrest, which provided safe reentry and prevented an impending rupture.     

Prognosis after aortic root replacement with cryopreserved allografts in adults

BACKGROUND: Aortic root replacement with cryopreserved allografts is associated with excellent hemodynamics, little endocarditis, low thromboembolic event rates, and no need for anticoagulation. There is, however, concern regarding the long-term durability of this valve substitute, especially in younger patients. Meta-analysis and microsimulation were used to calculate age-specific long-term prognosis after allograft aortic root replacement based on current evidence. METHODS: Our center's experience with cryopreserved allograft aortic root replacement in 165 adult patients was combined in a meta-analysis with reported and individual results from four other hospitals. Using this information, the microsimulation model predicted age- and gender-specific total and reoperation-free and event-free life expectancy. RESULTS: The pooled results comprised 629 patients with a total follow-up of 1860 patient-years (range 0 to 12.8 years). Annual risks were 0.6% for thromboembolism, 0.05% for bleeding, 0.5% for endocarditis, and 0.5% for nonstructural valve failure. Structural allograft failure requiring reoperation occurred in 15 patients, and a patient age-specific Weibull function was constructed accordingly. Calculated total life expectancy varied from 27 years in a 25-year-old to 12 years in a 65-year-old male; corresponding actual lifetime risk of reoperation was 89% and 35%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Cryopreserved aortic allografts have an age-related limited durability. This results in a considerable lifetime risk of reoperation, especially in young patients. The combination of meta-analysis and microsimulation provides an appropriate tool for estimating individualized long-term outcome after aortic valve replacement and can be useful both for patient counseling and prognostic research purposes.