Successful valve-sparing in aortic root reconstruction under endoscopic guidance.

OBJECTIVE: Aortic insufficiency (AI) associated with ascending aneurysm can be corrected by valve-sparing aortic root reconstruction ('David' reimplantation, 'Yacoub' remodeling). Intraoperative endoscopic evaluation in the aortic root may help to clarify the procedure and to access competence of the preserved valve. METHODS: Following cross-clamping of the ascending aorta, an endoscopy was inserted into the proximal aortic root. Perfusion of crystalloid cardioplegia enabled the visualization of the pressure-loaded valve in the closed position. Conventional macroscopic evaluation would have overlooked valve prolapse because of a release from perfusion pressure. Valve coaptation was imaged directly before and after the valve-sparing procedure. A total of 17 patients underwent aortic root reconstruction under endoscopic guidance. Indications of the valve-sparing were determined with endoscopic findings. The degree of AI before and after the surgery was evaluated by aortography and scored (0, none; 1 trivial; 2, mild; 3, moderate; 4, severe). RESULTS: Remodeling was employed to eight patients and reimplantation to four. The other five patients were replaced with prosthetic valved-conduit. There was no early and late mortality. Before and after the valve-sparing surgery, grades of AI were significantly reduced. Three patients who underwent reimplantation procedure required late valve replacement for late progression of AI, however, none of the patients with remodeling required reoperation. CONCLUSION: Introduction of an endoscopy successfully reduced postoperative AI and clarified indications and limitations of valve-sparing aortic root operations.     

Results of aortic valve-sparing operations.

OBJECTIVE: To review the late results of valve-sparing operations in patients with aortic root aneurysm and in those with ascending aortic aneurysm and aortic insufficiency. METHODS: From May 1988 to June 2000, 120 patients with aortic root aneurysm and 68 with ascending aortic aneurysm and aortic insufficiency underwent aortic valve-sparing operations. Patients with aortic root aneurysm were younger, were predominantly male, and had less severe aortic insufficiency than patients with ascending aortic aneurysm, who were older and often had aneurysm of the transverse arch. Forty-eight patients with aortic root aneurysm had the Marfan syndrome. The prevalence of aortic dissection was similar in both groups. Reconstruction of the aortic root was performed by reimplanation of the aortic valve in 64 patients and by remodeling of the aortic root in 56. Patients with ascending aortic aneurysm and aortic insufficiency were treated by replacement of the ascending aorta with reduction in the diameter of the sinotubular junction. Approximately two thirds of the latter patients also required replacement of the transverse aortic arch. The mean follow-up was 35 +/- 31 months for patients with aortic root aneurysm and 26 +/- 23 months for those with ascending aortic aneurysm. RESULTS: There were 2 operative and 5 late deaths in patients with aortic root aneurysm and 1 operative and 9 late deaths in patients with ascending aortic aneurysm. The 5-year survival for patients with aortic root aneurysm was 88% +/- 4% and for patients with ascending aortic aneurysm, 68% +/- 12% (P =.01). Severe aortic insufficiency developed in 2 patients, and they required aortic valve reoperation. The 5-year freedom from aortic valve reoperation was 99% +/- 1% for patients with aortic root aneurysm and 97% +/- 4% for those with ascending aortic aneurysm. Seven patients had moderate aortic insufficiency at the latest echocardiographic study. The 5-year freedom from severe or moderate aortic insufficiency was 90% +/- 4% in patients who had aortic root aneurysm and 98% +/- 2% in those who had ascending aortic aneurysm. CONCLUSIONS: Aortic valve-sparing operations have provided excellent clinical outcomes and few valve-related complications. The function of the reconstructed aortic root remains unchanged in most patients during the first 5 years of follow-up.     

Results of surgery for aortic root aneurysm in patients with Marfan syndrome

OBJECTIVES: This study was undertaken to examine the long-term results of surgery for aortic root aneurysm in patients with Marfan syndrome. METHODS: Forty-four patients underwent aortic root replacement and 61 underwent aortic valve-sparing operations for aortic root aneurysm. Patients who underwent aortic root replacement had more severe symptoms, worse left ventricular function, more severe aortic insufficiency, and larger aortic root aneurysms than did patients who had aortic valve-sparing operations. Two types of valve-sparing operations were performed: reimplantation of the aortic valve in 39 patients and remodeling of the aortic root in 22 patients. Echocardiography was performed annually during follow-up. The mean follow-ups were 75 +/- 54 months for the aortic root replacement group and 49 +/- 38 months for the aortic valve-sparing group. RESULTS: There were 1 early death and 7 late deaths; 6 deaths were in the aortic root replacement group and 2 were in the aortic valve-sparing group. Survivals at 10 years were 87% in the aortic root replacement group and 96% in the aortic valve-sparing group (P =.3). Freedoms from reoperation at 10 years were 75% in the root replacement group and 100% in the valve-sparing group (P =.1). Freedoms from valve-related mortality and morbidity were 65% after root replacement and 100% after valve-sparing operation (P =.02). Freedom from aortic insufficiency greater than 2+ after aortic valve-sparing operations was 75% at 10 years and was similar for both types of valve-sparing operations; however, the diameters of the aortic annulus and neoaortic sinuses increased only after the remodeling procedure. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that aortic valve-sparing operations provide similar survival but lower rates of valve-related complications than aortic root replacement for patients with Marfan syndrome. Reimplantation of the aortic valve may be more appropriate than remodeling of the aortic root to prevent dilation of the aortic annulus, and for this reason we now use only this technique to treat patients with Marfan syndrome.     

Valsalva prosthesis in aortic valve-sparing operations

Aortic valve-sparing operations have provided very good clinical outcomes. However, the absence of the sinuses of Valsalva might limit valve durability. The Gelweave Valsalva prosthesis, which presents pre-fashioned neo-sinuses, has been designed in order to avoid early leaflets deterioration. We report our results in 63 patients who underwent valve-sparing operations (reimplantation technique) using the Gelweave Valsalva graft. The main indication was ascending aorta aneurysm or annuloaortic ectasia, with or without aortic insufficiency. The operation was performed also in cases of Marfan syndrome, Bicuspid Aortic Valve (BAV), and acute Type A dissection. In-hospital mortality was of 4.7%, and two thirds were acute Type A dissection patients (P=0.01). There were no late deaths. Three years freedom from grade 3-4 AI and freedom from late aortic valve replacement were 91.7+/-4.3% and 93.8+/-5.1%, respectively. Aortic valve-sparing operations show good results in patients electively operated for aortic root ectasia. Aortic cusps repair may lead to late failure. Even if the Gelweave Valsalva prosthesis is easy to implant and it also reproduces pseudosinuses, a long-term follow up is necessary to determine if this graft may reduce leaflets deterioration.     

Results of surgery for aortic root aneurysm in patients with the Marfan syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the results of two operations, aortic valve-sparing and aortic root replacement, in patients with aortic root aneurysm and the Marfan syndrome. METHODS: A retrospective review of 78 consecutive patients with aortic root aneurysm and the Marfan syndrome according to the Gent criteria indicated that 42 patients with normal aortic cusps had an aortic valve-sparing operation, and 36 patients had aortic root replacement (mechanical valve in 25 patients and biological valve in 11). The mean age was similar in both groups, but patients who had aortic root replacement had larger aneurysms, higher grade aortic insufficiency, worse left ventricular function and more cardiac co-morbidity than patients who had aortic valve-sparing operations. The mean follow-up was 41+/-35 months for patients who had aortic valve-sparing, and 65+/-50 months for those who had aortic root replacement. RESULTS: Kaplan-Meyer estimates of survival at 5 years was 100% for patients who had aortic valve-sparing, and 88+/-6% for those who had aortic root replacement (P=0.04). Five patients who had aortic root replacement required seven aortic root re-replacements: three for endocarditis and four for valve failure (biological valves). There have been no reoperations in patients who had aortic valve-sparing operations and annual Doppler echocardiography revealed mild or no aortic insufficiency in 39 patients and moderate aortic insufficiency in three. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that aortic valve-sparing operations are safe in patients with the Marfan syndrome and may provide better clinical outcomes than aortic root replacement. Since the size of the aneurysm often determines the feasibility of a valve-sparing procedure, we now recommend surgery when the diameter of the aortic root reaches 50 mm in patients with the Marfan syndrome who have echocardiographically normal aortic valve cusps.     

Aortic valve-sparing operations for aortic root aneurysm

The object of this report is to review the clinical outcomes of aortic valve-sparing operations in patients with aortic root aneurysm. From May 1988 to June 2000, 120 patients with aortic root aneurysm with or without aortic insufficiency underwent aortic valve-sparing operations. There were 83 men and 37 women whose mean age was 46 years (range 16 to 72 years). Forty-eight patients had the Marfan syndrome, and 22 had either acute or chronic type A aortic dissections. Reconstruction of the aortic root was performed using the technique of reimplanation of the aortic valve in 64 patients and the remodeling of the aortic root in 56. The mean follow-up was 35 months (range 2 to 145 months), and it was complete. Aortic valve function was assessed by echocardiography. There were 2 operative and 5 late deaths. The 10-year survival for patients with aortic root aneurysm was 88% +/- 4%. Two patients have required aortic root replacement: one on the first postoperative day because of severe aortic insufficiency and one paraplegic patient 12 years after surgery because of infective endocarditis with aortic root abscess. Both patients survived reoperation. The 10-year freedom from aortic root reoperation was 99% +/- 1%. Three patients suffered transient ischemic attacks. The 10-year freedom from thromboembolic events was 89% +/- 5%. Seven patients had moderate aortic insufficiency at the latest echocardiographic study. The 10-year freedom from severe or moderate aortic insufficiency was 83% +/- 8%. Aortic valve-sparing operations have provided excellent clinical outcomes and few valve-related complications. The function of the reconstructed aortic root remains unchanged in most patients during the first decade of follow-up.     

Aortic valve sparing operations: an update

Background. Aortic valve sparing operations in patients with ascending aorta and/or aortic root aneurysms have been performed for a decade in our institution. Initially only patients with normal aortic valve leaflets had these operations, but more recently we utilized them in patients with prolapse of a single leaflet and in those with a bicuspid aortic valve. This article is an update on the clinical results of these operations.

Methods. From May 1988 to December 1997, 126 patients with ascending aorta and/or aortic root aneurysms and aortic insufficiency underwent replacement of the ascending aorta with reconstruction of the aortic root and preservation of the native aortic valve. There were 85 men and 41 women, with a mean age of 54 years (range, 14 to 84). Thirty-two patients had the Marfan syndrome; 17 patients had acute and 10 had chronic type A aortic dissection; 23 had a transverse arch aneurysm; 26 had coronary artery disease, and 8 had mitral regurgitation. The aortic valve sparing operation consisted of simple adjustment of the sinotubular junction in 33 patients, adjustment of the sinotubular junction and replacement of one or more aortic sinuses in 60, and reimplantation of the aortic valve in a tubular Dacron (C.R. Bard, Haverhill, PA) graft in 33. Fifteen patients also had repair of aortic leaflet prolapse. Only 4 patients had a bicuspid aortic valve.

Results. There were 3 operative deaths due to cardiac failure. Patients were followed from 2 to 117 months, with a mean of 31. There were 11 late deaths: 7 cardiovascular and 4 from unrelated causes. The actuarial survival was 72 ± 8% at 7 years. Two patients required aortic valve replacement; the freedom from aortic valve replacement was 97 ± 2% at 7 years. Doppler echocardiography revealed absent, trivial or mild aortic insufficiency in most patients; only 9 patients had moderate aortic insufficiency.

Conclusions. Aortic valve sparing operations are feasible in most patients with ascending aorta and/or aortic root aneurysms who have normal or near normal aortic leaflets. The functional results of the repaired aortic valve are excellent, and the repair appears to be durable.     

Aortic valve sparing operations: a review

Aortic valve sparing operations were developed to preserve the native aortic valve during surgery for aortic root aneurysm as well as surgery for ascending aortic aneurysms with associated aortic insufficiency. There are basically two types of aortic valve sparing oprations: remodeling of the aortic root and reimplantation of the aortic valve. These operations have been performed for over two decades and the clinical outcomes have been excellent in experienced hands. Although remodeling of the aortic root is physiologically superior to reimplantation of the aortic valve, long-term follow-up suggests that the latter is associated with lower risk of developing aortic insufficiency. Failure of remodeling of the aortic root is often due to dilatation of the aortic annulus. Thus, this type of aortic valve sparing should be reserved for older patients with ascending aortic aneurysm and normal aortic annulus whereas reimplantation of the aortic valve is more appropriate for young patients with inherited disorders that cause aortic root aneurysms. This article summarizes the published experience with these two operations. They are no longer experimental procedures and should be part of the surgical armamentarium to treat patients with aortic root aneurysm and ascending aortic aneurysms with associated aortic insufficiency.     

Valve-sparing aortic root replacement (remodeling/reimplantation) in acute type A dissection

BACKGROUND: High reoperation rates after supracommissural tube graft replacement for acute type A dissection due to sinus of Valsalva dilation have been reported. Valve-sparing operations focusing on the replacement of the sinus of Valsalva are an appealing alternative. The applicability of these techniques in acute type A dissection remains debatable and results are limited. METHODS: From 1992 to 1998, 20 patients with acute type A dissection received a valve-sparing aortic root replacement. Two different types of aortic valve-sparing operations were performed: the remodeling technique in 11 patients and the reimplantation technique in 9 patients. Patients were followed for 26 +/- 18 months. Echocardiographic studies were performed every 6 months. RESULTS: There were 2 early postoperative deaths and no late death, no reoperation, and no thromboembolic events. The latest echocardiographic studies of the 18 survivors showed a competent valve in 12 and a trivial aortic valve insufficiency in 6 patients. The mean aortic valve pressure gradient was 4.3 +/- 1.3 mm Hg. CONCLUSIONS: These midterm results support the surgical strategy of valve-sparing aortic root replacement in patients with acute type A dissection.     

Valve-sparing operation for aortic root aneurysm late after Mustard procedure

The aortic valve reimplantation technique leads to excellent clinical outcome in patients with aortic valve incompetence and aneurysms of the ascending aorta. This technique is now applied for aneurysms of ascending aorta, aortic dissection type A, and even dilatation of pulmonary autograft after the Ross operation. We report a case of aortic root dilatation late after a Mustard operation for transposition of the great arteries that was successfully managed by valve-sparing aortic root reimplantation.     

Results of valve-sparing aortic root reconstruction in 158 consecutive patients

BACKGROUND: This study assesses the durability and clinical outcome of valve-sparing aortic root reconstruction using the reimplantation technique in a single center cohort. METHODS: From July 1993 to July 2001, 158 patients underwent replacement of the ascending aorta with native valve reimplantation. Mean age of patients was 52 +/- 17 years (9 to 84 years), 103 were men (65%). Thirty-four patients (22%) suffered from Marfan's syndrome. Aortic dissection Stanford type A was present in 29 patients (19%) (22 acute, 7 chronic), and concomitant partial or total arch replacement was necessary in 57 patients (36%). One or more additional procedures were performed in 28 patients (18%). Mean follow-up was 36 +/- 25 months (0.4 to 96 months). RESULTS: Thirty-day mortality was 3.8% (6 patients), but only 2.2% in elective patients. Mean bypass time was 169 +/- 50 minutes (99 to 440 minutes), aortic cross-clamp time was 129 +/- 31 minutes (79 to 205 minutes). In patients undergoing arch replacement, circulatory arrest was 26 +/- 18 minutes (7 to 99 minutes). During follow-up, there were 5 (3.3%) cardiac-related late deaths. Grade of aortic insufficiency (AI) decreased from 2.3 +/- 1.1 (0 to 4) preoperatively to 0.23 +/- 0.44 (0 to 2) postoperatively (p < 0.0001). Six patients required aortic valve replacement, 4 of those due to progressive AI. Average grade of AI increased significantly to 0.42 +/- 0.61 (0 to 3) at latest evaluation (p = 0.002). Two patients experienced a transient ischemic attack within the first postoperative week. No further thromboembolic complications were noticed. All patients presented with a favorable exercise tolerance. CONCLUSIONS: The aortic valve reimplantation technique achieves excellent clinical outcome with few complications even in complex pathologies. Lack of anticoagulation and favorable durability encourage wider and earlier use of this technique.     

Valve-sparing aortic root reconstruction in patients with significant aortic insufficiency

BACKGROUND: To assess the feasibility and outcome of the valve-sparing aortic root reimplantation technique in patients with severe preoperative aortic insufficiency (AI). METHODS: Within 8 years we have operated on 158 patients with aneurysms of the ascending aorta using the reimplantation technique. We identified 83 patients with AI grade 3 or 4 (mean 3.1 +/- 0.4) preoperatively (study group). This cohort was compared with 71 patients with AI grade 2 or less (mean 1.3 +/- 0.9; control group) with regard to mortality, operative variables, complications, need for reoperation, postoperative AI, and clinical presentation during follow-up. RESULTS: Patient demographics were comparable in both groups. However, Marfan's syndrome (32% versus 13%, p = 0.006) and acute type A aortic dissection (20% versus 8.4%, p = 0.059) were more frequent in the control group. In addition, bypass (177 +/- 60 minutes versus 160 +/- 36 minutes, p = 0.022) and cross clamp times (133 +/- 34 minutes versus 124 +/- 27 minutes, p = 0.049) were significantly longer in controls. Mortality was low in the study group and comparable with controls (30-day, 3.6% versus 4.2%; during follow-up, 3.8% versus 5.9%; p = not significant [NS]). Reoperation rate was almost identical in both groups (3.8% versus 4.4%, p = NS). Mean grade of AI was significantly higher in the study group early postoperatively (0.31 +/- 0.46 versus 0.18 +/- 0.42, p = 0.049) but comparable at the last visit (0.43 +/- 0.58 versus 0.42 +/- 0.62, p = NS). During follow-up neither thromboembolic complications nor bleeding events were noted in either group. Clinical performance at the last visit revealed no significant difference between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative severe aortic insufficiency does not impair the excellent outcome seen after a mean of 3 years of follow-up in patients undergoing the reimplantation technique for valve-sparing aortic root reconstruction.     

保留主动脉瓣主动脉根部置换术治疗主动脉根部瘤的疗效分析

目的评价使用保留主动脉瓣主动脉根部置换术治疗主动脉根部瘤的临床应用疗效。方法 2001年2月至2010年9月阜外心血管病医院对60例主动脉根部瘤患者行保留主动脉瓣主动脉根部置换术,其中男44例,女16例;年龄9～64(37.2±13.0)岁。主动脉夹层15例,升主动脉瘤10例,马方综合征25例,主动脉瓣二瓣化畸形2例。行主动脉根部重建术53例,主动脉瓣瓣叶再植术7例。比较术前、术后心功能及主动脉瓣反流程度等指标。结果全组中无手术死亡和严重并发症发生,呼吸机使用时间中位数为13(2～1 110)h,住ICU时间1～18(2.7±2.5)d。术后复查超声心动图提示:主动脉瓣反流程度均明显减轻,仅3例为中大量反流,其余无反流或微少量反流。术后随访2～122(61.5±35.9)个月,随访56例,失访4例,随访期间死亡9例,生存率83.9%(47/56)。2例因主动脉瓣反流分别于术后13个月和14个月再次入院行主动脉瓣置换术。47例患者心功能较术前明显改善,心功能Ⅰ级35例(74.4%),Ⅱ级8例(17.0%)。免于主动脉瓣中重度反流40例(85.1%)。结论保留瓣叶的主动脉根部置换术治疗主动脉根部瘤的远期疗效满意,瓣膜相关并发症发生率低。     

Aortic valve sparing operations

Aortic valve sparing operations were developed to preserve the aortic valve in patients with ascending aortic aneurysm and aortic insufficiency or patients with aortic root aneurysm. There are 2 types of aortic valve sparing operations, remodeling of the aortic root and reimplantation of the aortic valve. The author believes that remodeling of the aortic root is more appropriate for older patients with ascending aortic aneurysm, dilated aortic sinuses, and normal aortic annulus, whereas reimplantation of the aortic valve is more appropriate for young patients with aortic root aneurysm in whom dilation of the aortic annulus is commonly associated. Although remodeling of the aortic root has been extensively used in patients with aortic root aneurysm, the long-term results are somewhat inferior to reimplantation in most series. The late results of aortic valve sparing operations have been excellent, and these operations have become an important addition to the surgical armamentarium to treat patients with proximal aortic aneurysms.     

Aortic root surgery in Marfan syndrome: Comparison of aortic valve-sparing reimplantation versus composite grafting

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the results of aortic valve-sparing reimplantation and aortic root replacement with mechanical valve conduits in patients with Marfan syndrome undergoing operation for aortic root aneurysms.Patients and methods Between March 1979 and April 2002, 119 patients with clinical evidence of Marfan syndrome underwent composite graft replacement with mechanical valve conduits (n = 74) or aortic valve-sparing reimplantation according to David (n = 45). The underlying causes were aortic dissection type A (43 patients) and aneurysms (76 patients). RESULTS: Patients undergoing aortic valve reimplantation were younger compared with patients undergoing composite grafting (28 vs 35 years, P =.002) and had longer intraoperative aortic crossclamp times (125 vs 78 minutes, P <.0001) and extracorporeal circulation times (162 vs 124 minutes, P <.0001). Early postoperative mortality was 6.8% (n = 5) in patients undergoing composite grafting and 0% in patients undergoing aortic valve reimplantation (P =.15). Mean follow-up was 30 months for patients undergoing aortic valve reimplantation and 114 months for patients undergoing composite grafting. Freedom from reoperation and death after 5 years postoperatively was 92% and 89% in patients undergoing composite grafting and 84% and 96% in patients undergoing aortic valve reimplantation (P =.31; P =.54), respectively. Thromboembolic complications or late postoperative bleeding occurred in 17 patients undergoing composite grafting, and an early postoperative event occurred in 1 patient undergoing aortic valve reimplantation. CONCLUSIONS: The results of aortic valve reimplantation and composite grafting of the aortic valve and ascending aorta with mechanical valve conduits are similar with regard to early and mid-term postoperative mortality and to the incidence of late reoperations in patients with Marfan syndrome. The low risk of thromboembolic or bleeding complications favors aortic valve reimplantation in these patients.     

Aortic repair in Marfan's syndrome: prevention of mechanical leaflets damage

Aortic incompetence in Marfan's syndrome results from distortion or dilatation of the sinuses of Valsalva, annuloaortic ectasia or a combination of these problems. Valve leaflets in these patients are macroscopically normal in spite of aortic insufficiency. Replacement of the ascending aorta, root and aortic valve with a composite graft was, for a long time, the treatment of choice for Marfan patients. Valve-preserving procedures (remodeling or reimplantation) provide the advantages of avoiding the shortcomings of standard surgical techniques, and maintaining the functional integrity of the left ventricular (LV) outflow tract, aortic root and ascending aorta. We developed a modified valve-sparing reimplantation technique for avoiding leaflet damage. This was achieved by leaving a 'cushion' of aortic wall (8--10 mm) that, sewn on the Dacron graft, works as a 'damper' and prevents leaflets injury during the systolic opening of the valve. For final judgment of this operative method long-term results are necessary.     

Long-term fate of the aortic root and aortic valve after ascending aneurysm surgery.

OBJECTIVE: The authors determined in which patients tube graft replacement could be used. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Tube graft replacement of ascending aortic aneurysms requires no coronary anastomoses and preserves the native aortic valve, but aortic insufficiency or aortic root aneurysms may develop requiring reoperation. Use of Bentall or Cabrol composite valve graft procedures obviates these problems but requires prosthetic valve replacement and coronary reattachment, both of which are associated with complications. These two procedures have been applied increasingly but because of renewed interest in aortic valve preservation and reconstruction, the authors determined in which patients tube replacement could be used. METHODS: The authors analyzed the fate of 277 patients, mean age 49 +/- 14 years, operated on between 1953 and 1992 by techniques that preserved the aortic root. The most common pathology was atherosclerosis in 104 patients. Perioperative mortality since 1975 was 14%. RESULTS: Fifteen patients required reoperation on the ascending aorta or aortic root; ascending aneurysm reoperation (6 patients); aortic valve replacement (8 patients), and a combined procedure (1 patient). Of these 15 patients, 8 had Marfan's syndrome, 10 had dissections, and 5 had medial degeneration/necrosis. CONCLUSIONS: Simple tube graft replacement of the ascending aorta was a durable technique in patients without Marfan's syndrome or medial degeneration/necrosis and allowed preservation of the native aortic valve in many patients.     

Reimplantation Valve‐Sparing Aortic Root Replacement for Aortic Root Aneurysm in the Elderly: Are We Pushing the Limits?

Abstract   Objectives: Reimplantation valve-sparing aortic root replacement has been increasingly performed with improving perioperative and midterm results. However, extending the age criterion in patient selection remains a debate. This study reviews the results of reimplantation valve-sparing aortic replacement in patients greater than 60 years of age. Methods: During a 51-month period, 63 patients with aortic root aneurysms underwent reimplantation valve-sparing aortic root replacement. The Gelweave Valsalva™ prosthesis (TERUMO CardioVascular Systems Corp., Ann Arbor, MI, USA) was used in all but one case. The patients were predominantly male, and the mean age was 67 years (range, 61–83 years). Four patients had congenital bicuspid aortic valves, and cusp repair was required in one patient. The mean follow-up was 25 months (range, 1–51 months). Results: There were one hospital and two late deaths. Overall survival at 51 months was 84 ± 9.9%. During follow-up, one patient developed severe aortic incompetence (AI) requiring an aortic valve replacement (AVR). Freedom from reoperation at 51 months was 92.8 ± 6.8%. Moderate AI was present at latest echocardiogram in one patient. Freedom from moderate or severe AI at 51 months was 90 ± 9.4%. There was no episode of endocarditis on follow-up. Univariate analysis demonstrated that no preoperative or intraoperative factor was a predictor for late reimplantation failure. Conclusions: Reimplantation valve-sparing aortic root replacement in patients greater than 60 years old can be performed with satisfactory perioperative and midterm results. Long-term results are needed to define the durability of this technique and its role in this subset of patients. (J Card Surg 2010;25:56-61)     

Valve-preserving surgery of the proximal aorta.

BACKGROUND: Surgical treatment of proximal aortic disease currently offers a variety of surgical options. Traditionally, replacement of the proximal aorta has been performed with a composite graft in most cases; supracommissural aortic replacement was the only alternative if preservation of the native aortic valve was attempted. Valve-preserving root operations currently allow us to avoid the disadvantages of prosthetic heart valves and completely eliminate aortic root pathology. METHODS: Between 10/95 and 5/99, 219 patients were treated for proximal aortic disease. The diagnoses included degenerative disease (n=158), acute dissection (n=48), and chronic dissection (n=13). Composite replacement of valve and root (n=99) was used only in patients with significant degeneration or stenosis of the aortic valve. For near-normal root dimensions supracommissural aortic replacement (n=44) was chosen. Root remodeling (n=60) and reimplantation of the valve within a vascular graft (n=16) were performed for aortic valve regurgitation and root dilatation. RESULTS: Overall hospital mortality was 5.7%; in elective operations, mortality was expectedly lower compared to emergency interventions (2.4% vs 16.3%; p<0.05). Hospital mortality for valve preserving procedures was similar (elective procedures 1.9%, emergency operations 9.5%). Two-year freedom from aortic regurgitation grade II or higher was 89% for remodeling and 92% for reimplantation. Freedom from reoperation for secondary and increasing regurgitation at two years was 96% for remodeling and 100% after reimplantation. CONCLUSIONS: Using current techniques of valve preserving surgery, combined disease of the aortic valve, root, and extended segments of the aorta can be corrected without the disadvantages of prosthetic heart valves in the majority of patients. Further experience will define the relative role of the different operative modifications.     

Reconstruction of the ascending aorta and aortic root: experience in 45 consecutive patients

BACKGROUND: Patients with aneurysms of the ascending aorta or aortic root may have associated aortic insufficiency (AI). We reviewed our experience with aortic root remodeling and reconstruction of the sino-tubular junction. METHODS: Forty-five patients were operated on between July 1995 and September 1998. Transesophageal echocardiography showed AI grade III or IV in 15 patients. Twenty-seven patients had replacement of all three sinuses, 10 of one or two sinuses. Reconstruction of the sino-tubular junction alone was performed in 8 patients. RESULTS: There was one death at 28 days. Perioperative transesophageal echocardiography showed no or discrete AI in all patients. There has been one aortic valve replacement at day 4 postoperatively for cusp repair failure. Transesophageal echocardiography in 40 patients at a mean time of 12.5 months showed no progression of AI in 38 patients, and a grade II in 2. Clinical follow-up averaged 14.5 months. There have been three late, not procedure-related deaths. Thirty-six patients are in New York Heart Association functional class I. There have been no cases of endocarditis. CONCLUSIONS: Aortic remodeling is successful in eliminating AI in patients with aortic root disease with minimal mortality and morbidity. Early echocardiography (1 year) has shown no progression of AI in 95% of cases.