Valve-sparing root replacement in patients with bicuspid aortopathy: An analysis of cusp repair strategy and valve durability

ObjectiveValve-sparing root replacement using reimplantation techniques is increasingly applied to bicuspid aortopathy. Long-term durability of cusp repair is unclear. We analyze midterm results using a conservative approach to cusp repair.MethodsFrom 2006 to 2018, 327 patients underwent valve-sparing reimplantation, 66 with bicuspid valves. Leaflets were analyzed after reimplantation. A majority (51/66) required no cusp repair. Fifteen patients had cusp repair limited to closure of unfused raphe or central plication. Patients were followed by echocardiography.ResultsMean age of patients was 44.7 ± 12.3 years. The cusp repair group had a higher incidence of preoperative moderate (10% vs 40%) or severe (4% vs 33.3%) aortic insufficiency (P < .001). There was no operative mortality or major complication. Mean follow-up was 51.6 ± 40.8 months. On postoperative echocardiography, incidence of none, trace, or mild aortic insufficiency was 41.3% (19/46), 43.5% (20/46), and 15.2% (7/46) in the no cusp repair group and 40% (6/15), 40% (6/15), and 20% (3/15) in the cusp repair group, respectively (P = .907). Few patients progressed in degree of aortic insufficiency. No patients required reoperation. At 5 years, freedom from any aortic insufficiency was 46.9% versus 15.8% (P = .013), and freedom from greater than trace aortic insufficiency was 59.1% versus 36.9% (P = .002) due to the higher rate of postoperative trace and mild aortic insufficiency with cusp repair. There was no difference in freedom from greater than mild aortic insufficiency (92.1% vs 100%; P = .33).ConclusionsValve-sparing root replacement is reliably performed with bicuspid aortic valves whether or not cusp reconstruction is necessary. Few patients progress to greater than mild aortic insufficiency. Need for reoperation is rare in midterm follow-up.     

A progress report on reimplantation of the aortic valve

ObjectiveTo examine the late outcomes of reimplantation of the aortic valve (RAV) in patients followed prospectively since surgery.MethodsAll 465 patients who had RAV from 1989 to 2018 were followed prospectively with periodic clinical and echocardiographic assessments. Mean follow-up was 10 ± 6 years and 98% complete.ResultsPatients' mean age was 47 ± 5.1 years, and 78% were men. The aortic root aneurysm was associated with Marfan syndrome in 164 patients, Loeys–Dietz syndrome in 13, bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) in 67, and type A aortic dissection in 33. Aortic insufficiency (AI) was greater than mild in 298 patients. Concomitant procedures were performed in 105 patients. There were 5 operative and 51 late deaths. At 20 years, 69.1% of patients were alive and free from aortic valve reoperation, and the cumulative probability of aortic valve reoperation with death as a competing risk was 6.0%, and the cumulative probability of developing moderate or severe AI was 10.2%. Only time per 1-year interval was associated with the development of postoperative AI by multivariable analysis (hazard ratio, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, >1.02-1.10; P = .006). Gradients across preserved BAV increased in 5 patients, and 1 required reoperation for aortic stenosis. Distal aortic dissections occurred in 22 patients, primarily in those with associated genetic syndromes.ConclusionsRAV provides excellent long-term results, but there is a progressive rate of AI over time, and patients with BAV may develop aortic stenosis. Patients with genetic syndromes have a risk of distal aortic dissections. Continued surveillance after RAV is necessary.     

Clinical impact of the heart team on the outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement among octogenarians

ObjectivesThe effectiveness of a multidisciplinary heart team in the management of patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis is unknown. This study evaluated the impact of a heart team on the outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement in octogenarians.MethodsBetween May 2007 and January 2016, 528 patients aged 80 years or more were referred to our institutional heart team for a transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Among these, 101 were redirected to surgical aortic valve replacement (heart team group). These patients were compared with a surgical aortic valve replacement cohort (n = 506) without prior heart team screening (non-heart team group), taken from the same time period. Propensity score matching with bootstrap analysis was performed; 76 heart team patients were matched to 76 non-heart team patients. Early and late outcomes including survival and readmission for cardiovascular causes were compared.ResultsMatched subgroups were largely comparable; congestive heart failure and echocardiographic pulmonary hypertension were more prevalent in the heart team group. In-hospital mortality was significantly lower in the matched heart team group (0% vs 6.0%, bootstrap mean difference 6.0%, 95% confidence interval, 2.2-9.8). The risk of stroke, low cardiac output state, reexploration for bleeding, pneumonia, and prolonged ventilation was also significantly lower in the heart team group. There was no significant between-group difference regarding late survival (hazard ratio, 0.86, 95% confidence interval, 0.55-1.33, P = .49) or readmission for cardiovascular reasons (hazard ratio, 0.70, 95% confidence interval, 0.41-1.20, P = .19).ConclusionsPreoperative multidisciplinary assessment of octogenarians by a heart team was associated with lower in-hospital mortality and adverse events after surgical aortic valve replacement.     

Ministernotomy compared with right anterior minithoracotomy for aortic valve surgery

ObjectivesMinisternotomy and right anterior minithoracotomy are the 2 main techniques applied for minimally invasive aortic valve replacement. The goal of this study is to compare early and long-term outcomes of both techniques.MethodsThe data of 2419 patients undergoing isolated minimally invasive aortic valve replacement between 1999 and 2019 were prospectively collected. Retrospectively, patients were divided into the ministernotomy group (n = 1352) and the minithoracotomy group (n = 1067).ResultsAfter propensity score matching, 986 patients remained in each group. Operation time and rate of conversion to full sternotomy were significantly higher in the minithoracotomy group than in the ministernotomy group (184.6 ± 45.2 vs 241.3 ± 68.6, relative risk, 2.54, P = .005 and .09 vs .23, relative risk, 1.45, P = .013, respectively). The 30-day mortality, excluding cardiac death, was lower in the ministernotomy group than in the minithoracotomy group (0.012 vs 0.028, relative risk, 1.41, P = .011, respectively); the intensive care unit length of stay (12.4 vs 16.5, relative risk, 1.62, P = .037, respectively) and hospital length of stay (5.4 vs 8.7, relative risk, 1.74 P = .028, respectively) were significantly longer in the minithoracotomy group. The minithoracotomy surgical approach was the strongest independent predictor of early mortality (odds ratio, 4.24 [1.67-7.35], P = .002). The actuarial survival by Kaplan–Meier analysis at 1, 3, 5, 10, and 20 years was significantly better in the ministernotomy group than in the minithoracotomy group (P = .0001). Actuarial freedom from reoperation at 5 years was 97.3% ± 4.4% in the ministernotomy group versus 95.8% ± 5.2% in the minithoracotomy group (P = .087).ConclusionsMinimally invasive aortic valve replacement using ministernotomy is associated with reduced operative time, intensive care unit stay, hospital length of stay, and postoperative morbidities and incisional pain, and improves early and long-term mortality.     

Differences among sexes in presentation and outcomes in acute type A aortic dissection repair

ObjectiveFemale sex is a known risk factor in most cardiac surgery, including coronary and valve surgery, but unknown in acute type A aortic dissection repair.MethodsFrom 1996 to 2018, 650 patients underwent acute type A aortic dissection repair; 206 (32%) were female, and 444 (68%) were male. Data were collected through the Cardiac Surgery Data Warehouse, medical record review, and National Death Index database.ResultsCompared with men, women were significantly older (65 vs 57 years, P < .0001). The proportion of women and men inverted with increasing age, with 23% of patients aged less than 50 years and 65% of patients aged 80 years or older being female. Women had significantly less chronic renal failure (2.0% vs 5.4%, P = .04), acute myocardial infarction (1.0% vs 3.8%, P = .04), and severe aortic insufficiency. Women underwent significantly fewer aortic root replacements with similar aortic arch procedures, shorter cardiopulmonary bypass times (211 vs 229 minutes, P = .0001), and aortic crossclamp times (132 vs 164 minutes, P < .0001), but required more intraoperative blood transfusion (4 vs 3 units) compared with men. Women had significantly lower operative mortality (4.9% vs 9.5%, P = .04), especially in those aged more than 70 years (4.4% vs 16%, P = .02). The significant risk factors for operative mortality were male sex (odds ratio, 2.2), chronic renal failure (odds ratio, 3.4), and cardiogenic shock (odds ratio, 6.8). The 10-year survival was similar between sexes.ConclusionsPhysicians and women should be cognizant of the risk of acute type A aortic dissection later in life in women. Surgeons should strongly consider operations for acute type A aortic dissection in women, especially in patients aged 70 years or more.     

Long-term survival after xenograft versus homograft aortic root replacement: Results from a prospective randomized trial

ObjectiveThe study objective was to investigate the long-term survival of patients undergoing xenograft versus homograft full root aortic valve replacement.MethodsA total of 166 patients requiring aortic valve surgery were randomized to undergo the Freestyle (Medtronic Inc, Minneapolis, Minn) bioprosthesis (N = 90) or a homograft (N = 76) full root aortic valve replacement between 1997 and 2005 in a single institution. Six patients randomly assigned to the homograft crossed over to the Freestyle bioprosthesis because of the unavailability of suitably sized homografts. All surgeons were required to adhere to the standard surgical technique for homograft root implantation previously described. Follow-up was 98.5% complete.ResultsThe mean age of the study population was 65 ± 8 years. Coronary artery bypass grafting was associated with root aortic valve replacement in 76 of 166 patients (46%, P = not significant between groups), and overall hospital mortality was 4.8% (8/166, P = not significant between groups). Median follow-up was 13.8 years (range, 0-21.8 years; 2033 patient-years). The Kaplan–Meier survival analysis showed that there was no significant difference in overall survival between the 2 arms at 5, 10, and 15 years. Twenty-year survival was 28.3% ± 5% for the Freestyle group versus 25.1% ± 5.7% for the homograft group (P = .90), which was comparable to the age- and sex-matched UK general population. The freedom from aortic valve reoperation at 20 years was comparable for the Freestyle group versus the homograft group (67.9% ± 8.8% vs 67.2% ± 10.3%, respectively; P = .74).ConclusionsThis is the first study to investigate the long-term survival of xenograft versus homograft full root aortic valve replacement from a prospective randomized trial. The observed 20-year overall survival and freedom from aortic valve reoperation serve as a benchmark for future studies on interventions for aortic valve disease in the elderly.     

Valve-sparing root replacement after the Ross procedure

ObjectivesThe Ross procedure is a preferred treatment for infants and children with aortic valve disease. Progressive neoaortic root dilation and neoaortic insufficiency can occur after the Ross procedure, and because of the young age of these patients, valve-sparing aortic root replacement procedures have advantages compared with the Bentall procedure. The aim of this study is to describe our experience with different techniques of aortic valve-sparing root replacement in this unique cohort of patients.MethodsPatients undergoing valve-sparing aortic root replacement with a history of the Ross procedure between January 2001 and March 2021 were identified. A retrospective chart review was performed, and clinical characteristics of these patients were analyzed. The results of different types of valve-sparing aortic root replacement were also compared.ResultsForty-two patients who had previously undergone a Ross procedure in childhood presented for reintervention for neoaortic root or valve pathology. Seventeen of these patients were considered for valve-sparing aortic root replacement but underwent bioprosthetic or mechanical valve replacement, and 25 patients underwent successful valve-sparing aortic root replacement. Patients who underwent valve-sparing aortic root replacement received a traditional aortic root remodeling procedure with or without suture annuloplasty (Yacoub technique, group 1, n = 7), an aortic root reimplantation procedure (David technique, group 2, n = 11), or a modified root remodeling procedure that also used a geometric annuloplasty ring (group 3, n = 7). Patient demographics and comorbidities were similar between groups. Mean follow-up for these 3 cohorts was 14 years, 4 years, and 1 year, respectively. Overall survival was good, with 1 early death due to hemorrhage in group 2 and 1 death due to malignancy in group 1. Eight patients (7 in group 1; 1 in group 2) required subsequent aortic valve replacements due to neoaortic insufficiency, whereas none in group 3 have required any reintervention. Overall, patients requiring valve replacement after valve-sparing aortic root replacement had lower grades of preoperative neoaortic insufficiency and higher grades of postoperative neoaortic insufficiency. Greater than mild postoperative neoaortic insufficiency was associated with the need for subsequent neoaortic valve replacement.ConclusionsValve-sparing aortic root replacement is safe in patients with a prior Ross procedure. Reimplantation offers superior durability compared with the traditional remodeling procedure. Greater than mild neoaortic insufficiency on postoperative echocardiogram should prompt additional attempts at valve repair. A modified remodeling procedure with geometric ring annuloplasty that is personalized to the patient's individual anatomy is safe with good short-term results, but longer follow-up is needed.     

Is anterior mitral valve leaflet length important in outcome of septal myectomy for obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy?

ObjectivesElongation of mitral valve leaflets is a phenotypic feature of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, and some surgeons advocate plication of the anterior leaflet at the time of septal myectomy. The present study investigates mitral valve leaflet length and outcomes of patients undergoing septal myectomy for obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.MethodsWe reviewed the records and echocardiograms of 564 patients who underwent transaortic septal myectomy for obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy between February 2015 and April 2018. Extended septal myectomy without plication of the anterior leaflet was the standard procedure. From intraoperative prebypass transesophageal echocardiograms, we measured anterior and posterior mitral valve leaflets and their coaptation length. For comparison, we performed these mitral valve leaflet measurements in 90 patients who underwent isolated coronary artery bypass grafting and 92 patients undergoing aortic valve replacement in the same period. Among patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy undergoing septal myectomy, we assessed left ventricular outflow tract gradient relief and 1-year survival in relation to leaflet length.ResultsMedian patient age (interquartile range) was 60.3 (50.2-67.7) years, and 54.1% were male. Concomitant mitral valve repair was performed in 36 patients (6.4%), and mitral valve replacement was performed in 8 patients (1.4%), primarily for intrinsic mitral valve disease. Patients in the hypertrophic cardiomyopathy cohort had significantly longer mitral valve leaflet measurements compared with patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting or aortic valve replacement (P < .001 for all 3 measurements). Preoperative resting left ventricular outflow tract gradients were not related to leaflet length (<30 mm, median 49 [21, 81.5] mm Hg vs ≥30 mm, 50.5 [21, 77] mm Hg; P = .76). Further, gradient reduction after myectomy was not related to leaflet length; patients with less than 30 mm anterior leaflet length had a median gradient reduction of 33 (69, 6) mm Hg compared with 36.5 (62, 6) mm Hg for patients with leaflet length 30 mm or more (P = .36). Anterior mitral valve leaflet length was not associated with increased 1-year mortality (P = .758).ConclusionsOur study confirms previous findings that patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy have slight (5 mm) elongation of mitral valve leaflets. In contrast to other reports, increased anterior mitral valve leaflet length was not associated with higher left ventricular outflow tract gradients. Importantly, we found no significant relationship between anterior mitral valve leaflet length and postoperative left ventricular outflow tract resting gradients or gradient relief. Thus, in the absence of intrinsic mitral valve disease, transaortic septal myectomy with focus on extending the excision beyond the point of septal contact is sufficient for almost all patients.     

Biological versus mechanical prostheses for aortic valve replacement

ObjectivesLong-term real-world outcomes are critical for informing decisions about biological (Bio) or mechanical (Mech) prostheses for aortic valve replacement, particularly in patients aged between 50 and 65 years. The objective was to compare long-term survival and major adverse cardiac and cardiovascular events (ie, stroke, reoperation, and major bleeding) within this population.MethodsThis was a multicenter observational study including all patients aged between 50 and 65 years who underwent an aortic valve replacement because of severe isolated aortic stenosis between the years 2000 and 2018. A total of 5215 patients from 27 Spanish hospitals were registered with a follow-up of 15 years. Multivariable analyses, including a 2:1 propensity score matching (1822 Mech and 911 Bio) and competing risks analyses were applied.ResultsBio prostheses were implanted in 19% of patients (n = 992). No significant differences were observed between matched groups in long-term survival (hazard ratio [HR], 1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.88-1.47; P = .33). Stroke rates were higher for Mech prostheses, but not significant (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.50-1.03; P = .07). Finally, higher rates of major bleeding were found in the Mech group (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.49-0.87; P = .004), whereas reoperation was more frequent among the Bio group (HR, 3.04; 95% CI, 1.80-5.14; P < .001). Bio prostheses increased from 13% in the period from 2000 to 2008 to 24% in 2009 to 2018.ConclusionsLong-term survival was comparable among groups in patients between 50 and 65 years of age. Mech prostheses were associated with a higher risk of major bleeding, whereas Bio prostheses entailed higher reoperation rates. Bio prostheses seem a reasonable choice for patients between 50 and 65 years in Spain.     

Is hemiarch replacement adequate in acute type A aortic dissection repair in patients with arch branch vessel dissection without cerebral malperfusion?

ObjectiveThe study objective was to determine if hemiarch replacement is an adequate arch management strategy for patients with acute type A aortic dissection and arch branch vessel dissection but no cerebral malperfusion.MethodsFrom January 2008 to August 2019, 479 patients underwent open acute type A aortic dissection repair. After excluding those with aggressive arch replacement (n = 168), cerebral malperfusion syndrome (n = 34), and indeterminable arch branch vessel dissection (n = 1), 276 patients with an acute type A aortic dissection without cerebral malperfusion syndrome who underwent hemiarch replacement comprised this study. Patients were then divided into those with arch branch vessel dissection (n = 133) and those with no arch branch vessel dissection (n = 143).ResultsThe median age of the entire cohort was 62 years, with the arch branch vessel dissection group being younger (60 vs 62 years, P = .048). Both groups had similar aortic arch and descending thoracic aortic diameters, with significantly more DeBakey type I dissections (100% vs 80%) in the arch branch vessel dissection group. The arch branch vessel dissection group had more aortic root replacement (36% vs 27%, P = .0035) and longer aortic crossclamp times (153 vs 128 minutes, P = .007). Postoperative outcomes were similar between the arch branch vessel dissection and no arch branch vessel dissection groups, including stroke (10% vs 5%, P = .12) and operative morality (7% vs 5%, P = .51). The arch branch vessel dissection group had a significantly greater cumulative incidence of reoperation (8-year: 19% vs 4%, P = .04) with a hazard ratio of 2.89 (95% confidence interval, 1.01-8.27; P = .048), which was similar between groups among only DeBakey type I dissections (8-year: 19% vs 5%, P = .11). The 8-year survival was similar between the arch branch vessel dissection and no arch branch vessel dissection groups (76% vs 74%, P = .30).ConclusionsHemiarch replacement was adequate for patients with acute type A aortic dissection with arch branch vessel dissection without cerebral malperfusion syndrome, but carried a higher risk of late reoperation.     

The use of blood and blood products in aortic surgery is associated with adverse outcomes

ObjectiveTo report long-term outcomes after deep hypothermic circulatory arrest (DHCA) with or without perioperative blood or blood products.MethodsAll patients who underwent proximal aortic surgery with DHCA from 2011 to 2018 were propensity matched according to baseline characteristics. Primary outcomes included short- and long-term mortality. Stratified Cox regression analysis was performed for significant associations with survival.ResultsA total of 824 patients underwent aortic replacement requiring circulatory arrest. After matching, there were 224 patients in each arm (transfusion and no transfusion). All baseline characteristics were well matched, with a standardized mean difference (SMD) <0.1. Preoperative hematocrit (41.0 vs 40.6; SMD = 0.05) and ejection fraction (57.5% vs 57.0%; SMD = 0.08) were similar between the no transfusion and blood product transfusion cohorts. Rate of aortic dissection (42.9% vs 45.1%; SMD = 0.05), hemiarch replacement (70.1% vs 70.1%; SMD = 0.00), and total arch replacement (21.9% vs 23.2%; SMD = 0.03) were not statistically different. Cardiopulmonary bypass and cross-clamp time were higher in the blood product transfusion cohort (P < .001). Operative mortality (9.4% vs 2.7%; P = .003), stroke (7.6% vs 1.3%; P = .001), reoperation rate, pneumonia, prolonged ventilation, and dialysis requirements were significantly higher in the transfusion cohort (P < .001). In stratified Cox regression, transfusion was an independent predictor of mortality (hazard ratio, 2.62 [confidence interval, 1.47-4.67]; P = .001). One- and 5-year survival were significantly reduced for the transfusion cohort (P < .001).ConclusionsIn patients who underwent aortic surgery with DHCA, perioperative transfusions were associated with poor outcomes despite matching for preoperative baseline characteristics.     

Surgical outcomes of acute type A aortic dissection in patients undergoing cardiopulmonary resuscitation

ObjectivesThe surgical indications for acute type A aortic dissection (AAAD) in patients in cardiopulmonary arrest remain controversial. Outcomes of AAAD for patients who underwent cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) were evaluated.MethodsBetween 2004 and 2018, of the 519 patients who underwent AAAD repair, 34 (6.6%) required CPR before or on starting AAAD repair. The patients were divided into 2 groups, survivors (n = 13) and nonsurvivors (n = 21), to compare the early operative outcomes, including mortality and neurological events.ResultsThe major cause of cardiovascular collapse requiring CPR was aortic rupture/cardiac tamponade (n = 21 [61.8%]), followed by coronary malperfusion (n = 12 [35.3%]) and acute aortic valve regurgitation (n = 3 [8.8%]). There were 3 (23.1%) patients in the survivors group and 11 (52.4%) in the nonsurvivors group who required ongoing CPR at the beginning of AAAD repair (P = .039). Of these patients, 1 survivor and 6 nonsurvivors could not achieve return of spontaneous circulation after pericardiotomy (P = .045). Although the duration from onset or arrival to the operating room was similar (P = .35 and P = .49, respectively), overall duration of CPR was shorter in survivors (10 minutes [range, 7.5-16 minutes] vs 16.5 minutes [range, 15-20 minutes]; P = .044). All survivors without any neurological deficits showed return of spontaneous circulation after pericardiotomy. Multivariate regression modeling showed that CPR duration >15 minutes was a significant risk factor for in-hospital mortality (P = .0040).ConclusionsCPR duration beyond 15 minutes may be a contraindication for AAAD repair. Moreover, we should reconsider surgery for patients who cannot achieve return of spontaneous circulation after pericardiotomy.     

Outcomes after endovascular versus open thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair: A population-based study

ObjectiveWe sought to determine the early and late outcomes of endovascular versus open thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair.MethodsWe performed a multicenter population-based study across the province of Ontario, Canada, from 2006 to 2017. The primary end point was mortality. Secondary end points were time to first event of a composite of mortality, permanent spinal cord injury, permanent dialysis, and stroke, the individual end points of the composite, patient disposition at discharge, hospital length of stay, myocardial infarction, and secondary procedures at follow-up.ResultsA total of 664 adults undergoing surgical repair of a thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (endovascular: n = 303 [45.5%] vs open: n = 361 [54.5%]) were identified using an algorithm of administrative codes validated against the operative records. Propensity score matching resulted in 241 patient pairs. Endovascular repairs increased during the study and currently comprise more than 50% of total repairs. In the matched sample, open repair was associated with a higher incidence of in-hospital death (17.4% vs 10.8%, P = .04), complications (26.1% vs 17.4%, P = .02), discharge to rehabilitation facilities (18.7% vs 10.0%, P = .02), and longer length of stay (12 [7-21] vs 6 [3-13] days, P < .01). Long-term mortality was not significantly different (hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 0.78-1.50), nor were the other secondary end points, with the exception of secondary procedures, which were higher in the endovascular group (hazard ratio, 2.64; 95% confidence interval, 1.54-4.55). At 8 years, overall survival was 41.3% versus 44.6% after endovascular and open repair (P = .62).ConclusionsEndovascular repair was associated with improved early outcomes but higher rates of secondary procedures after discharge. Long-term survival after thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair is poor and independent of repair technique.     

Open hemiarch versus clamped ascending aorta replacement for aortopathy during initial bicuspid aortic valve replacement

BackgroundThere is controversy regarding the extent of aortic resection necessary in patients with aortopathy related to bicuspid aortic valve disease. To address this issue, we reviewed our experience in patients undergoing ascending aorta replacement during bicuspid aortic valve replacement.MethodsWe reviewed 702 patients who underwent ascending aorta replacement at the time of initial nonemergent native bicuspid aortic valve replacement at our institution between January 2000 and June 2017. Treatment cohorts included an open hemiarch replacement group (n = 225; 32%) and a clamped ascending aorta replacement group (n = 477; 68%).ResultsMedian patient age was 60 years (interquartile range [IQR], 51-67 years), female sex was present in 113 patients (16%), ejection fraction was 62% (IQR, 56%-66%), and aortic arch diameter was 33 mm (IQR, 29-36 mm). Cardiopulmonary bypass time was longer in the hemiarch replacement group (188 minutes vs 97 minutes; P < .001). Procedure-related complications (36%) and mortality (<1%) were similar in the 2 groups; however, the hemiarch group had an increased odds of blood transfusion (odds ratio, 1.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.15-2.28; P = .006). The median duration of follow-up was 6.0 years (95% CI, 5.3-6.8 years). Overall survival was 94 ± 1% at 5 years and 80 ± 2% at 10 years. Multivariable analysis demonstrated similar survival in the 2 groups (hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.51-1.33; P = .439). No repeat aortic arch operations were done for aortopathy over the duration of clinical follow-up.ConclusionsCompared with patients in the clamped ascending aorta replacement group, patients in the hemi-arch replacement group had longer cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic cross-clamp times, along with an increased risk of blood transfusion, but similar freedom from repeat aortic arch operation and survival. We identified no advantage of performing hemiarch replacement in the absence of aortic arch dilation.     

The fate of aortic valve after rheumatic mitral valve surgery

ObjectiveDeterioration of the native aortic valve function by a late progression of rheumatic disease is not infrequent in patients who underwent rheumatic mitral valve surgery; however, this phenomenon has not been clearly quantified.MethodsA total of 1155 consecutive patients (age 52.0 ± 12.9 years; 807 female) who underwent rheumatic mitral valve surgery without concomitant aortic valve surgery from 1997 to 2015 were enrolled. The primary end point was the composite of progression to severe aortic valve dysfunction or a requirement of subsequent aortic valve replacements during follow-up. To determine the risk factors of the primary outcome, we performed the generalized linear mixed model.ResultsThe baseline severities of aortic valve were none to trivial in 880 patients (76.2%), mild in 256 patients (22.2%), and moderate in 19 patients (1.6%). The latest 1062 echocardiographic assessments (91.9%; median, 81.2 postoperative months; interquartile range, 37.3-132.1 months) demonstrated 26 cases (0.33%/patient-year) meeting the primary end point during follow-up. Cumulative incidence of the primary end point at 10 years was 0.4% ± 0.3% and 7.4% ± 2.5% depending on the presence of mild or greater aortic valve dysfunction at baseline (P < .01). In multivariable analyses, aortic valve peak pressure gradient (odds ratio, 1.14; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.20), aortic regurgitation degree (mild over none: odds ratio, 3.26; 95% confidence interval, 1.15-9.23), and time (odds ratio, 1.30; 95% confidence interval 1.19-1.41) were significantly associated with the occurrence of the primary end point.ConclusionsProgression of severe aortic valve dysfunction and the need for aortic valve replacement are uncommon in patients undergoing rheumatic mitral valve surgery. However, such events were relatively common among those with mild or greater aortic valve dysfunction at the time of mitral valve surgery.     

Deceased-donor lobar lung transplant: A successful strategy for small-sized recipients

ObjectivesLobar lung transplantation (LLTx) from deceased donors is a potential solution for donor–recipient size mismatch for small sized recipients. We reviewed our institutional experience to compare outcomes after LLTx to standard lung transplantation (LTx).MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed transplants in our institution from January 2000 to December 2017. LLTx early- and long-term outcomes were compared with LTx. Additional analysis of outcomes was performed after dividing the cohort into 2 eras (era 1, 2000-2012; era 2, 2013-2017).ResultsAmong the entire cohort (1665), 75 were LLTx (4.5%). Compared with LTx, LLTx were more frequently bridged to transplant with extracorporeal life support or mechanical ventilation and were transplanted in a rapidly deteriorating status (respectively, 20% vs 4.4%, P = .001; 22.7% vs 7.9, P < .001; and 41.3% vs 26.5%, P = .013). LLTx had longer intensive care unit and hospital lengths of stay (respectively, median 17 vs 4 days, and 45 vs 23, both P < .001), and greater 30-day mortality (13.3% vs 4.3%, P = .001) and 90-day mortality (17.3% vs 7.2%, P = .003). In era 2, despite a significantly greater 30-day mortality (10.8% vs 2.8%, P = .026), there was no significant difference in 90-day mortality between LLTx and LTx (13.5% vs 5.1%, P = .070). Overall survival at 1, 3, and 5 years was not significantly different between LLTx and LTx (73.2% vs 84.4%, 56.9% vs 68.4% and 50.4% vs 55.8, P = .088).ConclusionsAlthough LLTx is a high-risk procedure, both mid- and long-term survival are comparable with LTx in all cohorts in the modern era. LLTx therefore represents a valuable surgical option for small-sized recipients.     

Bioprosthetic versus mechanical mitral valve replacements in patients with rheumatic heart disease

BackgroundRheumatic heart disease (RHD) remains a critical problem in developed countries. Few studies have compared the long-term outcomes of bioprosthetic valves and mechanical valves in patients with RHD who have received mitral valve (MV) replacement.MethodsPatients with RHD who received MV replacement with bioprosthetic or mechanical valves were identified between 2000 and 2013 from Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database. The primary late outcomes of interest were all-cause mortality and redo MV surgery. Propensity score matching at a 1:1 ratio was performed.ResultsWe identified 3638 patients with RHD who underwent MV replacement. Among those patients, 1075 (29.5%) and 2563 (70.5%) chose a bioprosthetic valve and mechanical valve, respectively. After matching, 788 patients were assigned to each group. No significant difference in the risk of in-hospital mortality was observed between groups (P = .920). Higher risks of all-cause mortality (10-year actuarial estimates: 50.6% vs 45.5%; hazard ratio, 1.19; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.41; P = .040) and MV reoperation (10-year actuarial estimates: 8.9% vs 0.93%; subdistribution hazard ratio, 4.56; 95% confidence interval, 1.71-12.17; P <.01) were observed in the bioprosthetic valve group. Furthermore, the relative mortality benefit associated with mechanical valves was more apparent in younger patients and the beneficial effect persisted until approximately 65 years of age.ConclusionsIn the patients with RHD who underwent MV replacement, mechanical valves were associated with more favorable long-term outcomes in patients younger than the age of 65 years.     

The fate of aortic root and aortic regurgitation after supracoronary ascending aortic replacement for acute type A aortic dissection

BackgroundThe aim of this study was to evaluate the fate of the preserved aortic root after supracoronary aortic replacement for acute type A aortic dissection.MethodsBetween October 1999 and March 2018, 339 patients underwent supracoronary aortic replacement for acute type A aortic dissection at our institution. Late outcomes were evaluated, including overall survival, aortic-related death, and aortic root–related reoperation. The median follow-up was 3.7 years (1.4-8.4 years).ResultsOperative mortality was 46 patients (13.6%). The cumulative incidences at 5 years for aortic root–related reoperation, aortic-related death, and non–aortic related death were 2.5%, 14.5% and 12.4%, respectively. Multivariable Cox hazard regression analysis demonstrated greater sinus of Valsalva diameter and number of commissural detachments to be significant risk factors for a composite outcome consisting of aortic-related death or aortic root–related reoperation. Mixed-effects regression demonstrated that sinus of Valsalva diameter significantly increased with time (P < .001), and aortic regurgitation significantly worsened (P < .001).ConclusionsSinus of Valsalva diameter and commissural detachment were independent predictors of unfavorable outcomes after supracoronary aortic replacement. Close follow-up is particularly necessary for these patients, and aortic root replacement at the time of initial operation may lead to more favorable late outcomes.     

The impact of surgical aortic valve replacement on quality of life—a multicenter study

ObjectivesTo explore the effect of surgical aortic valve replacement on quality of life and the variance with age, particularly in patients at risk of deterioration.MethodsIn an observational, multicenter, cohort study of routinely collected health data, patients undergoing and electively operated between January 2011 and January 2015 with pre- and postoperative quality of life data were included. Patients were classified into 3 age groups: <65, 65-79, and ≥80 years. Quality of life was measured at baseline and at 1-year follow-up using the Short-Form Health Survey-12 or SF-36. We defined a >5-point difference as a minimal clinically important difference. Multivariable linear regression analysis, with adjustment for confounders, was used to evaluate the association between age and quality of life.ResultsIn 899 patients, mean physical health increased from 55 to 66 and mental health from 60 to 66. A minimal clinically important decreased physical health was observed in 12% of patients aged <65 years, 16% of patients aged 65-79 years, and 22% of patients aged ≥80 years (P = .023). A decreased mental health was observed in 15% of patients aged <65 years, 22% of patients aged 65-79 years, and 24% aged ≥80 years (P = .030). Older age and a greater physical and mental score at baseline were associated with a decreased physical and mental quality of life (P < .001).ConclusionsPatients surviving surgical aortic valve replacement on average improve in physical and mental quality of life; nonetheless, with increasing age patients are at higher risk of experiencing a deterioration.     

Ross procedure in neonates and infants: A valuable operation with defined limits

ObjectiveThe Ross procedure is an important tool that offers autologous tissue repair for severe left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) pathology. Previous reports show that risk of mortality is highest among neonates and infants. We analyzed our institutional experience within this patient cohort to identify factors that most affect clinical outcome.MethodsA retrospective chart review identified all Ross operations in neonates and infants at our institution over 27 years. The entire study population was analyzed to determine risk factors for mortality and define outcomes for survival and reintervention.ResultsFifty-eight patients underwent a Ross operation at a median age of 63 (range, 9-156) days. Eighteen (31%) were neonates. Eleven (19%) patients died before hospital discharge. Multiple regression analysis of the entire cohort identified young age (hazard ratio [HR], 1.037; P = .0045), Shone complex (HR, 17.637; P = .009), and interrupted aortic arch with ventricular septal defect (HR, 16.01; P = .031) as independent predictors of in-hospital mortality. Receiver operating characteristic analysis (area under the curve, 0.752) indicated age younger than 84 days to be the inflection point at which mortality risk increases. Of the 47 survivors, there were 2 late deaths with a mean follow-up of 6.7 (range, 2.1-13.1) years. Three patients (6%) required LVOT reintervention at 3, 8, and 17.5 years, respectively, and 26 (55%) underwent right ventricular outflow tract reintervention at a median of 6 (range, 2.5-10.3) years.ConclusionsRoss procedure is effective in children less than one year of age with left sided obstructive disease isolated to the aortic valve and/or aortic arch. Patients less than 3 months of age with Shone or IAA/VSD are at higher risk for morbidity and mortality. Survivors experience excellent intermediate-term freedom from LVOT reintervention.