Aortic root anatomy: insights into annular and root enlargement techniques.

The introduction of the Y(ang)-technique for aortic root enlargement has sparked a renewed interest in annular and root enlargement procedures world-wide. In order to execute these procedures proficiently however, it's important to understand the complex three-dimensional structure of the aortic root and left ventricular outflow tract, and also be familiar with the different enlargement techniques. Herein, we are providing a description of the aortic root anatomy and the most commonly utilized root enlargement procedures. This should facilitate clinical decision making and guidance of patients towards the most appropriate procedure, which should not only treat the patients' acute symptoms, but should also set the patient up for potentially needed future procedures and respective life-time management of aortic valve disease.

Tricuspid valve repair for infective endocarditis.

OBJECTIVES: The progressive increase in the use of implantable electronic devices, vascular access for dialysis and the increased life expectancy of patients with congenital heart diseases has led in recent years to a considerable number of right-side infective endocarditis, especially of the tricuspid valve (TV). Although current guidelines recommend TV repair for native tricuspid valve endocarditis (TVE), the percentage of valve replacements remains very high in numerous studies. The aim of our study is to analyse our experience in the treatment of TVE with a reparative approach. METHODS: This case series includes all the patients who underwent surgery for acute or healed infective endocarditis on the native TV, at the Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc (Bruxelles, Belgium) between February 2001 and December 2020. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients were included in the study. Twenty-eight (90.3%) underwent TV repair and 3 (9.7%) had a TV replacement with a mitral homograft. The repair group was divided into 2 subgroups, according to whether a patch was used during surgery or not. Hospital mortality was 33.3% (n = 1) for the replacement group and 7.1% (n = 2) for repair (P = 0.25). Overall survival at 10 years was 75.6% [95% confidence interval (CI): 52-89%]. Further, freedom from reoperation on the TV at 10 years was 59.3% (95% CI: 7.6-89%) vs 93.7% (95% CI: 63-99%) (P = 0.4) for patch repair and no patch use respectively. Freedom from recurrent endocarditis at 10 years was 87% (95% CI: 51-97%). CONCLUSIONS: Considering that TVE is more common in young patients, a repair-oriented approach should be considered as the first choice. In the case of extremely damaged valves, the use of pericardial patch is a valid option. If repair is not feasible, the use of a mitral homograft is an additional useful solution to reduce the prosthetic material.

Intra-operative electroencephalogram frontal alpha-band spectral analysis and postoperative delirium in cardiac surgery: A prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative delirium (POD) remains a frequent complication after cardiac surgery, with pre-operative cognitive status being one of the main predisposing factors. However, performing complete pre-operative neuropsychological testing is challenging. The magnitude of frontal electroencephalographic (EEG) α oscillations during general anaesthesia has been related to pre-operative cognition and could constitute a functional marker for brain vulnerability. OBJECTIVE: We hypothesised that features of intra-operative α-band activity could predict the occurrence of POD. DESIGN: Single-centre prospective observational study. SETTING: University hospital, from 15 May 2019 to 15 December 2021. PATIENTS: Adult patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pre-operative cognitive status was assessed by neuropsychological tests and scored as a global z score. A 5-min EEG recording was obtained 30 min after induction of anaesthesia. Anaesthesia was maintained with sevoflurane. Power and peak frequency in the α-band were extracted from the frequency spectra. POD was assessed using the Confusion Assessment Method for Intensive Care Unit, the Confusion Assessment Method and a chart review. RESULTS: Sixty-five (29.5%) of 220 patients developed POD. Delirious patients were significantly older with median [IQR] ages of 74 [64 to 79] years vs. 67 [59 to 74] years; P  < 0.001) and had lower pre-operative cognitive z scores (-0.52 ±â€Š1.14 vs. 0.21 ±â€Š0.84; P  < 0.001). Mean α power (-14.03 ±â€Š4.61 dB vs. -11.59 ±â€Š3.37 dB; P  < 0.001) and maximum α power (-11.36 ±â€Š5.28 dB vs. -8.85 ±â€Š3.90 dB; P  < 0.001) were significantly lower in delirious patients. Intra-operative mean α power was significantly associated with the probability of developing POD (adjusted odds ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.81 to 0.96; P  = 0.007), independently of age and only whenever cognitive status was not considered. CONCLUSION: A lower intra-operative frontal α-band power is associated with a higher incidence of POD after cardiac surgery. Intra-operative measures of α power could constitute a means of identifying patients at risk of this complication. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03706989.

Valve-sparing operations after Ross procedure: a single-center experience.

Background: The Ross procedure has demonstrated excellent long-term results, with restoration of life-expectancy in patients with severe aortic valve dysfunction. However, reintervention after Ross can occur, and herein we describe our center's experience with redo surgery after previous Ross procedures. Methods: We searched our prospective database for aortic valve-repair and recruited all adult (≥18 years) patients who have undergone valve-sparing root replacements (VSRRs) and/or aortic valve-repair after Ross procedure between July 2001 and July 2022. Univariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify variables affecting early mortality. Survival, freedom-from-valve-reintervention and freedom-from-aortic regurgitation (AR) grade ≥3 were analyzed with the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: A total of 63 patients were recruited for this study. Indication for reoperation after Ross was aortic aneurysm without AR in 17 (27%), aortic aneurysm with AR in 27 (43%), and isolated AR in 19 (30%) patients. Median follow-up time was 7.82 years. The majority of patients (76%) had undergone the free root technique during their index Ross operation. Cumulative survival, after redo surgery following Ross, was 98.4% [95% confidence interval (CI): 89.3-99.8%] at 1 year, 96.3% (95% CI: 88.2-98.3%) at 5 years, and 92.4% (95% CI: 87.1-98.0%) at 10 years. Freedom-from-reoperation on the aortic valve at 1 year was 98.4% (95% CI: 97.0-99.8%), at 5 years was 96.7% (95% CI: 87.6-99.0%), and 79.7% (95% CI: 71.1-88.3%) at 10 years. Conclusions: Long-term survival after redo surgery following the Ross operation is excellent. The data support our aggressive valve-sparing approach after Ross.

Functional and pathomorphological anatomy of the aortic valve and root for aortic valve sparing surgery in tricuspid and bicuspid aortic valves.

The aortic valve (AV) is a three-dimensional structure, with leaflets that are suspended within the functional aortic annulus (FAA). These structures (AV and FAA) are therefore intrinsically connected and disease of just one component can independently lead to AV dysfunction. Hence, AV dysfunction can occur in the setting of entirely normal valve leaflets. However, as these structures are functionally inter-connected, disease of one component can lead to abnormalities of the other over time. Thus, AV dysfunction is often multifactorial. Valve-sparing root procedures require an in-depth understanding of these inter-relationships, and herein we are providing a detailed account of some of the most pertinent anatomical relationships.

Three decades of reimplantation of the aortic valve-the Brussels experience.

Background: Over the last three decades, the importance of native valve preservation has increasingly become evident. Valve-sparing root replacement procedures, such as the reimplantation or remodeling technique, are therefore being progressively used for aortic root replacement and/or aortic valve repair. Herein, we are summarizing our single-center experience with the reimplantation technique. Methods: We queried our prospective database for aortic valve repair and recruited all adult (≥18 years) patients who have undergone valve-sparing root replacement with the reimplantation technique between March 1998 and January 2022. We subcategorized the patients into three distinct groups: root aneurysm without aortic regurgitation (AR) (grade ≤1+), root aneurysm with AR (grade >1+) and isolated chronic AR (root <45 mm). Univariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify variables of interest, which were further analyzed by multivariable Cox-regression analysis. Survival, freedom from valve reintervention, and freedom from recurrent regurgitation, were analyzed with the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: A total of 652 patients were recruited for this study; 213 patients underwent reimplantation for aortic aneurysm without AR, 289 patients for aortic aneurysm with AR, and 150 patients with isolated AR. Cumulative survival was 95.4% (95% CI: 92.9-97.0%) after 5 years, 84.8% (80.0-88.5%) after 10 years, and 79.5% (73.3-84.5%) after 12 years, which was comparable to the age-matched Belgian population. Older age (HR 1.06, P≤0.001) and male gender (HR 2.1, P=0.02) were associated with late mortality. Freedom from reoperation on the aortic valve at 5 years was 96.2% (95% CI: 93.8-97.7%), and 90.4% (95% CI: 87.4-94.2%) at 12 years. Age (P=0.001) and preoperative left ventricular end-diastolic dimension (LVEDD) (P=0.03) were associated with late reoperation. Conclusions: Our long-term data supports our reimplantation approach as a viable option for aortic root aneurysms and/or aortic regurgitation, with long-term survival that mirrors that of the general population.

Robotic mitral valve repair-the Bruxelles experience.

Background: Although the use of the surgical robot facilitates less invasive mitral valve surgery, both real and perceived limitations have slowed the application of this technology. Aim of the present investigation was to report the early and long-term results of robotic mitral valve repair in a single institution over a 10-year period. Methods: Between March 2012 and May 2022, a total of 278 consecutive patients underwent robotically assisted mitral valve repair at the Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc (Brussels, Belgium). Indications have evolved over time allowing the treatment of complex mitral valve lesions. Clinical and echocardiographic follow-up were 97.8% and 86.1% complete, respectively. Results: Mean age of the study population was 57.8±11.9 years and 221/278 (79.5%) patients were male. Despite being asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic [New York Heart Association (NYHA) class I-II], most of the patients presented with severe mitral regurgitation (MR). Degenerative mitral valve disease was the most common cause of MR. All patients underwent successful mitral valve repair using different techniques, and 25/278 (9.0%) had one or more concomitant procedures associated. The mean cardio-pulmonary bypass and aortic cross clamp times were 153±37 and 106±25 minutes, respectively. There was no operative or in-hospital mortality. Overall survival rate was 97.8%±3.2%, 95.8%±3.2% and 93.7%±3.0% at 3, 7 and 10 years. One early (0.4%) reoperation with re-repair was recorded for ring disruption, while late mitral valve re-repair was necessary in 4/279 (1.4%) patients for recurrent severe MR in three of them and mitral endocarditis in one. The overall freedom from mitral valve reoperation was 98.1%±1.0% at 3, 7 and 10 years. Overall freedom from MR (grade 2+ or more) was 91.7%±3.2%, 77.8%±4.8% and 67.1%±9.2% at 3, 7 and 10 years, respectively. Conclusions: Robotic mitral valve repair is safe and is associated with excellent clinical and echocardiographic results. The use of robotic technologies allows, after an appropriate learning curve, to reproduce all conventional techniques to treat MR, regardless of the complexity of the valve lesion.

Predictors of long-term stenosis in bicuspid aortic valve repair.

OBJECTIVES: The use of modern techniques for bicuspid aortic valve repair has been shown to provide safe and durable results against recurrent regurgitation. However, an emerging body of evidence is indicating that aortic stenosis might be an additional late complication of these procedures. To date, the pathogenesis and clinical impact of aortic stenosis after bicuspid aortic valve repair are poorly understood. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 367 patients with bicuspid aortic valve repair was performed to identify predictors of reoperation for stenosis. Bicuspid aortic valve repair was performed using a combination of procedures on the leaflet, annulus, and aortic root. RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 8 years, reoperation for stenosis was required in 33 patients (9.0%). Freedom from reoperation for stenosis was 100%, 99.6%, 91.7%, and 74.9% at 1, 5, 10, and 15 years, respectively. The following factors were independently associated with reoperation for aortic stenosis: Leaflet or raphe resection with shaving was a protective factor (hazard ratio, 0.34; 95% confidence interval, 0.16-0.71; P = .004), whereas the use of expanded polytetrafluoroethylene for free-edge running suture (hazard ratio, 2.55; 95% confidence interval, 1.16-5.57; P = .019), supracoronary replacement of the ascending aorta in combination with valve repair (hazard ratio, 5.41; 95% confidence interval, 2.11-13.85; P = .001), and the need for a second aortic crossclamp (hazard ratio, 10.95; 95% confidence interval, 2.80-42.80; P = .001) were associated with increased risk of reoperation for aortic stenosis. CONCLUSIONS: While confirming previous findings, our analysis suggests that the inability to restore leaflet mobility and polytetrafluoroethylene for free-edge running suture are risk factors for stenosis. The so-called ascending phenotypes are probably more prone to stenosis. If the first attempt to repair is unsuccessful, the risk of late reoperation for aortic stenosis is high.

Congenital unicuspid aortic valve repair without cusp patch augmentation.

Unicuspid aortic valves are rare congenital malformations. Surgical repair is feasible in aortic regurgitation, and in some cases of aortic stenosis. The standard surgical approach is a bicuspidization and symmetrization with pericardial patch augmentation of valve leaflets. Herein, we are describing our original technique for bicuspidization of a unicuspid aortic valve in adults without leaflet patch augmentation. We also address the surgical management of a commissural diastasis.

Aortic annulus elevation for aortic valve and root replacement.

Aortic valve and root replacements require an in-depth understanding of the aortic root and annulus. Both structures can be asymmetric at times, and this needs to be recognized and taken into consideration when performing valve-sparing operations or other root-replacement procedures. Moreover, the geometry of the aortic annulus can be altered, and when performing an aortic root replacement this can distort the geometry of a neoaortic valve for instance, and lead to valve dysfunction, which is difficult to reverse. We are describing an altered aortic annulus, which required modification through annulus elevation before proceeding with aortic root replacement with a graft-reinforced pulmonary-autograft.

Myocardial revascularization: Tips and tricks for performing a coronary anastomosis.

Coronary artery bypass graft surgery was performed for the first time in the 1960s [(1]). Today, it is still one of the pillars of cardiac surgery and the most common cardiac operation. Many improvements have been developed since it was first introduced, but such operations remain technically challenging. We focus here on the surgical exposure and suture techniques for different grafts and targets. The goal of standardizing surgical techniques is to improve intraoperative and postoperative outcomes, especially for young practitioners.

Long-term experience with valve-sparing root reimplantation surgery in tricuspid aortic valve.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze our long-term experience with valve-sparing reimplantation technique in treating aortic root aneurysm, aortic regurgitation, and aortic dissection in patients with tricuspid aortic valve. METHODS: Between March 1998 and October 2018, 303 consecutive patients underwent valve-sparing reimplantation in our institution. The mean age of this cohort was 52.9 ± 15 years. Time to event analysis was performed with the Kaplan-Meier method. Risk of death, reoperation, and aortic regurgitation (AR) recurrence were analyzed using the cox-regression method. RESULTS: In-hospital mortality was 1% (n = 3) of which two were admitted for acute aortic dissection. Median follow-up was 5.81 years ([IQR]: 2.8-10 years). Thirty-nine patients (14.4%) died during follow-up. At 5 and 10 years, overall survival was 92 ± 2%and 75 ± 4.9%, respectively. Seventeen patients required late aortic valve reoperation. Freedom from valve reoperation was 95 ± 2% and 90 ± 3%. Freedom from AR > 2+ and AR > 1+ at 10 years was 91 ± 4% and 71.5 ± 4.6%, respectively. Significant multivariate predictors of death included age, New York Heart Association dyspnea class (NYHA), type A acute dissection (TAAD), and preoperative left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD). Significant multivariate predictors of AR recurrence included indication for surgery, previous cardiac surgery, and presence of preoperative AR. Freedom from events like major bleeding, thromboembolic events, and infective endocarditis at 10 years were 97%, 98%, and 96%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Aortic valve-sparing with the reimplantation technique has been performed for over two decades in our institution, and the results in patients with tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) are excellent in terms of survival and freedom from valve-related adverse outcomes including valve reoperation. These results continue supporting the use of valve sparing root replacement using the reimplantation technique (VSRR) in patients with aortic aneurysm, irrespective of whether they have preoperative AR or not. VSRR is safe, durable, and reproducible, but further follow-up, well into the second decade is still necessary.

Aortic valve repair in endocarditis: scope and results.

PURPOSE: Infective endocarditis (IE) remains a prevalent and life-threatening disease. The choice to repair or replace the infected valve still remains a matter of debate, especially in aortic valve (AV) infections. We retrospectively analyze our two decades of experience in aortic valve repair (AVr) in IE. Long-term outcomes are described with particular attention to the impact of valve configuration and the use of patch techniques. METHODS: From September 1998 to June 2017, 42 patients underwent AVr in a single center for IE. Techniques include leaflet patch repair and resuspension and aortic annulus stabilization. RESULTS: Hospital mortality was 2.4% (n = 1). The median follow-up was 90.6 months. Survival was 89 ± 9.4% and 76.6 ± 16% at 5 and 10 years, respectively, with no significant differences between tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) and bicuspid aortic valve (BAV). Freedom from reoperation was 100% and 92.9 ± 7.1% in TAV and 81.8 ± 18.2% and 46.8 ± 28.8% in BAV at 5 and 10 years, respectively (TAV vs BAV, p = 0.02). BAV, degree of preoperative aortic insufficiency, and AVr including patch were factors predicting a higher risk of reoperation during the follow-up. CONCLUSION: In our experience, AVr is a safe, feasible, and efficient choice in selected patients with healed or active IE. Durability of the repair is excellent in patients with limited lesions and in patients with TAV even with patch repair. Reoperations occurred principally in patients with BAV and severe preoperative AI, in whom patch repair was performed. In those patients, we actually recommend to replace the valve in case of active endocarditis.