Concomitant aortic valve and ascending aorta replacement with moderate hypothermic circulatory arrest to treat an aortic bicuspid valve with post-stenotic dilatation

We recommend concomitant surgery for aortic valve replacement (AVR) and ascending aortic replacement using moderate hypothermic circulatory arrest (CA) for post-stenotic dilatation complicated by an aortic bicuspid valve. Cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) was established from the right atrium to the dilated ascending aorta. As soon as the rectal temperature decreased to 28?°C, CA was commenced and the open distal anastomosis of a polyester prosthesis, without any cerebral perfusion, was completed. AVR was then carried out during rapid re-warming with CPB using a side arm of the prosthesis. This procedure exhibited safe and satisfactory results. There are many benefits of carrying out the procedure in this way; it avoids the requirement for cannulation to a calcified aortic arch, provides a good operative field, for an easier distal anastomosis and suturing at the valve site, and reduces the risk of further dilatation or dissection of the residual ascending aorta in the later phase.     

Hypothermic circulatory arrest for aortic dissection with cryoglobulinemia

Cryoglobulinemia is a cold-reactive autoimmune disease. A 64-year-old man with active cryoglobulinemia presented Stanford type A acute aortic dissection. He had been treated with immunosuppressive drugs and plasma exchange (PE) at our hospital; subsequently, qualitative analysis of cryoglobulin (CG) was negative. He underwent emergency ascending aorta replacement using cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) under deep hypothermia circulatory arrest with selective cerebral perfusion. The total CPB time, aortic cross-clamp time, and selective cerebral perfusion time were 255, 153, 56 minutes, respectively, and the minimal nasopharyngeal temperature was 17.3°C. Our patient had no significant perioperative complications. Hence, if PE is performed appropriately and CG is negative, patients with cryoglobulinemia who exhibit severe preoperative symptoms can safely undergo surgery with deep hypothermia.     

Systematic review of the outcome of aortic valve replacement in patients with aortic stenosis

Background

After the establishment of aortic valve replacement procedure for aortic stenosis, there are heterogeneous studies and varying reports on outcome. An analysis that compares individual studies to summarize the overall effect is still lacking. This study systematically analyzes the change in left ventricular (LV) mass index and ejection fraction after aortic valve replacement in adult patients.

Methods

We performed MEDLINE and bibliographic searches and included 27 articles published between 1980 and 2003 about the outcome of valve replacement in 1546 aortic stenosis patients. To allow comparisons, we stratified the patients into early (0-6 months), intermediate (7-24 months), and late (25-120 months) follow-up groups for the analysis of both LV mass regression and ejection fraction. We separately analyzed five articles that reported groups of patients with low preoperative ejection fraction.

Results

Increase in ejection fraction after surgery is more pronounced in the patients that have low preoperative ejection fraction (28% ± 4.3%_preop vs 40% ± 9.4%_{6-41 months} follow-up). Patients with normal or high preoperative ejection fraction have variable outcomes. However, regression of LV mass is uniformly achieved regardless of age, sex, time of operation, or types of valve substitute. Furthermore, LV mass regresses predominantly within the first 6 months after surgery (g/m², 181 ± 25.8_preop vs 124 ± 27_{6 months}, 117 ± 15_{24 months}, and 113 ± 14_{120 months} follow-up).

Conclusions

This systematic review supports the concept that aortic stenosis patients with LV dysfunction show a clear functional improvement after aortic valve replacement. Ventricles regress rapidly and reach their approximate final size within the first 6 months of surgery.     

Reoperative cryopreserved root and ascending aorta replacement for acute aortic prosthetic valve endocarditis

BACKGROUND: Prosthetic aortic valve endocarditis (PVE) is an important complication of aortic valve replacement (AVR) and is a particularly difficult situation after an operation combining AVR with ascending aortic replacement. METHODS: From 1988 through 2000, 27 patients with aortic valve PVE after previous ascending aortic replacement (aortic root replacement in 13, aortic valve replacement with a supracoronary graft in 14) underwent reoperation for aortic root replacement with a cryopreserved aortic allograft and prolonged intravenous antibiotic therapy. All patients were considered to have active PVE (25 with positive cultures); root abscess formation was present in 89% and aortoventricular discontinuity in 41%. RESULTS: One patient (3.7%) died in-hospital, and permanent pacemakers were required in 10 patients (37%). Mean postoperative follow-up interval was 3.9 +/- 3.0 years, and survival at 1, 2, 5, and 7.5 years was 92%, 88%, 70%, and 56%, respectively. One patient underwent reoperation for recurrent PVE 8 months after operation. CONCLUSIONS: Radical debridement of infected prosthetic material and tissue, and allograft aortic root and ascending aorta replacement, combined with intravenous antibiotic therapy, appears to achieve a low hospital mortality and a high degree of freedom from recurrent infection for patients with PVE after AVR and ascending aortic replacement.     

Durability and outcome of aortic valve replacement with mitral valve repair versus double valve replacement

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate morbidity and mortality after double valve replacement (DVR) and aortic valve replacement with mitral valve repair (AVR + MVP). METHODS: From 1977 to 2000, 379 patients underwent DVR (n = 299) or AVR + MVP (n = 80). Actuarial survival and freedom from reoperation were determined by the Kaplan-Meier method. Potential predictors of mortality and reoperation were entered into a Cox multiple regression model. Propensity score was introduced for the multivariable regression modeling for adjustment of a selection bias. RESULTS: Survival 15 years after surgery was similar between the groups (DVR, 81% +/- 3%; AVR + MVP, 79% +/- 7%; p = 0.44). Freedom from thromboembolic event at 15 years was similar between the groups (p = 0.25). Freedom from mitral valve reoperation at 15 years was significantly better for the DVR group (54% +/- 5%) as compared with the AVR + MVP group (15% +/- 6%; p = 0.0006), primarily due to progression of mitral valve pathology and early structural deterioration of bioprosthetic aortic valve used for patients with AVR + MVP. After AVR + MVP, freedom from mitral reoperation at 15 years was 63% +/- 16% for nonrheumatic heart diseases, and 5% +/- 5% for rheumatic disease (p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Although both DVR and AVR + MVP provided excellent survival, DVR with mechanical valves should be the procedure of choice for the majority of patients because of lower incidence of valve failure and similar rate of thromboembolic complications compared with AVR + MVP. MVP should not be performed in patients with rheumatic disease because of higher incidence of late failure.     

Hypothermic circulatory arrest for acute traumatic aortic rupture associated with shock

Purpose  

Hypothermic circulatory arrest is considered to be a contraindication in acute traumatic aortic rupture (TAR) because full heparinization and hypothermia may lead to fatal bleeding if concomitant hemorrhagic injuries are present. However, in extremely emergent situations, rapid volume infusion via cardiotomy vacuums and the institution of hypothermic circulatory arrest appears to be the only method for saving patients with uncontrollable bleeding. In this study, we evaluate the feasibility of hypothermic circulatory arrest for treating patients with TAR with hemorrhagic shock.     

Hypothermic circulatory arrest in the treatment of thoracic aortic lesions

The use of hypothermic circulatory arrest has been established in the treatment of aortic arch lesions. We recently used this method of arrest in the treatment of 10 consecutive patients with thoracic aortic lesions. Seven of these patients had dissecting aneurysms of the ascending aorta with extension into the aortic arch. One patient had a mycotic aneurysm of the arch, and 2 patients had arteriosclerotic aneurysms of the ascending aorta and entire aortic arch. All patients were supported and cooled with cardiopulmonary bypass. Circulatory arrest was maintained for periods of 21 to 63 minutes. All 10 patients survived the operative procedure. Nine patients remained intact neurologically. Renal function returned to baseline in all patients. Average blood replacement was 2.9 units. All patients have experienced an excellent surgical result. The average follow-up is 21.1 months. The technique facilitates a surgical approach to these lesions and appears to be the safest form of vital-organ preservation.     

Outcome after aortic valve replacement in octogenarians

Background

The advancing age of the population in the western world and improvements in surgical techniques and postoperative care have resulted in an increasing number of very elderly patients undergoing cardiac operations. Therefore, the aim of this study is to evaluate the surgical outcome in 115 octogenarians after aortic valve replacement.

Methods

We retrospectively identified 115 patients (47 men, 68 women) aged 82.3 ± 2.1 years (mean, 80 to 92 years) who underwent aortic valve replacement alone (71 patients, 62.1%) or in combination with coronary artery bypass grafting (44 patients, 37.9%), between January 1992 and April 2003. These patients had significant severe aortic stenosis with a mean valve area of 0.62 ± 0.15 cm² and a mean gradient of 88.62 ± 24.06 mm Hg.

Results

The in-hospital mortality rate was 8.5%. The late follow-up was 100% complete. Actuarial survival at 1 and 5 years was 86.4% and 69.4%, respectively. Predictors of late mortality were ejection fraction (p < 0.01), preoperative heart failure (p < 0.03), and the type of prosthesis (p < 0.03).

Conclusions

The outcome after aortic valve replacement in octogenarians is excellent; the operative risk is acceptable and the late survival rate is good. Therefore, cardiac surgery should not be withheld on the basis of age alone.