Early- and longer-term outcomes of David versus Florida sleeve procedure: propensity-matched comparison.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare short- and longer-term outcomes of David (DV) versus Florida sleeve (FS) procedure in patients requiring valve-sparing aortic root replacement. METHODS: Between January 1996 and December 2020 285 patients received a DV procedure (median age 60 years; 26% females) and 57 patients underwent an FS procedure (median age 64 years; 19% females) in our department. Propensity score matching using patient characteristics led to 58 (DV) versus 57 (FS) patients. End points were defined as primary: freedom from aortic valve and/or aortic root-related reoperation and freedom from aortic regurgitation ≥moderate and secondary: early and late survival. RESULTS: Thirty-day mortality was 2% (DV) and 0% (FS) (P = 0.319). There was 1 early stroke in each group (P = 0.990). Follow-up was complete in 99% with only 1 patient (FS) lost. The 5- and 10-year freedom from aortic valve and/or aortic root related reoperation was 98 ± 2% and 96 ± 3% in the DV group and 92 ± 5% and 84 ± 9% in the FS group, respectively (P = 0.095). The 5- and 10-year freedom from aortic regurgitation ≥moderate was 88 ± 5% and 80 ± 8% in the DV group and 92 ± 5% and 78 ± 1% in the FS group, respectively (P = 0.782). The 5- and 10-year survival rates were 93 ± 4% and 82 ± 6% (DV) vs 75 ± 7% and 67 ± 10% (FS), respectively (P = 0.058). No case of endocarditis (DV) and 3 cases of endocarditis (FS) (P = 0.055) were observed during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Both DV and FS resulted in similar early and longer-term outcomes with a trend to slightly better performance and survival in the DV group. Florida sleeve procedure might be an alternative approach for patients with higher-risk profiles requiring valve-sparing aortic root replacement.

Longer-term outcomes after bicuspid aortic valve repair in 142 patients.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the longer-term results of bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) repair with or without aortic root replacement. METHODS: From 1999 to 2017, 142 patients with or without aortic root dilatation who underwent repair of a regurgitant BAV were included in the study. Ninety-four patients underwent isolated BAV repair (Group 1; median age 43 years) and 48 patients underwent valve-sparing aortic root replacement plus BAV repair (aortic valve reimplantation-Group 2; median age 48 years). Median clinical follow-up time was 5.9 years (range 0.5-15) in Group 1 and 3 years (range 0.5-16) in Group 2, respectively. RESULTS: In-hospital mortality was 1% in Group 1, and 2% in Group 2 (p = .6). The 5- and 10-year survival was 93 ± 2.9% and 81 ± 5.8% in Group 1 and 96 ± 3.1% and 96 ± 3.1% in Group 2, respectively (p = .31). Eleven patients of Group 1 (1.7%/patient-year) and five patients of Group 2 (2.2%/patient-year) underwent reoperation of the aortic valve (p = .5). The 5- and 10-year freedom from reoperation were 93.0 ± 2.1% and 77.1 ± 7.1% in Group 1 and 93.0 ± 5.0% and 76.7 ± 9.6% in Group 2 (p = .83), respectively. At the latest follow-up, only two patients of Group 1 and 1 patient of Group 2 had AV regurgitation = 2° (p = .7). The cumulative linearized incidence of all valve-related complications (bleeding, stroke, endocarditis, and reoperation) was 2.9%/patient-year in Group 1% and 4%/patient-year in Group 2, respectively (p = .6). CONCLUSIONS: Isolated BAV repair and combined aortic valve reimplantation plus BAV repair provide good clinical longer-term outcomes with relatively low reoperation rate and durable valve function.

Midterm follow up in patients with reduction ascending aortoplasty.

BACKGROUND: The reduction ascending aortoplasty in patients with an aortic ectasia/dilatation is a common procedure during concomitant cardiac operations. Aim of the follow up study was the evaluation of possible re-dilatation and complications. METHODS: From 1998 to 2010 124 patients (69% male; mean age 66.6 ± 12 ys) with ectasia of the ascending aortic who had no further indication for an aortic replacement, were included. The mean preoperative diameter of the ascending aorta was 4.2 ± 0.6 cm. The patients risk profile was moderate (mean EF 51% ± 11%, Euroscore 4.2 ± 2.1). To treat the dilatation of the ascending aorta, a longitudinal incision was performed and a strip of the aortic wall was resected. A reduction aortoplasty was carried out with a double-layered suture line using a 4/0 Prolene mattress suture with an additional 4/0 Prolene running suture. A follow up (rate 95%) was performed by echocardiography- and clinical examination. RESULTS: All patients underwent reduction aortoplasty associated with a primary cardiac surgical procedure (AVR 63%, CABG 13%, other or combination 24%). The intrahospital mortality rate was 4%. Four aortic bleeding complications occurred. After a mean postoperative period of 57 ± 39 months, the ascending aortic diameter (3.6 ± 0.6 cm) was still significantly (P < 0.01) reduced. No postoperative aortic-related complications including aortic rupture, dissection and reoperation were observed. In 4 patients, the ascending aorta had re-dilated to the preoperative diameter. CONCLUSION: Reduction ascending aortoplasty without external wrapping is a safe procedure with acceptable midterm results in patients with asymptomatic dilatations and concomitant cardiac surgical procedures.

Long-term follow-up of minimally invasive cardiac surgery using an endoaortic occlusion system.

OBJECTIVES: We reviewed the initial patient series (n=116) of our institution performing minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) (n=79), mitral valve surgery (n=1), or atrial septal closure (ASD) procedures (n=26) using an endoaortic occlusion system. With this technique relevant intra-aortic pressures are exerted on the aortic wall during the clamping time. This might lead to late aortic degeneration and aneurysm formation. Our study sought to evaluate postoperative aortic complications and the quality of life (modified SF-12). METHODS: One hundred sixteen patients (56% male; 54 years ± 14.5; range 19 years to 77 years) underwent a cardiac procedure using an endoaortic clamp. The endoaortic balloon clamp catheter was used to occlude the ascending aorta at pressures >300 mmHg. Patients were rescheduled for echocardiographic examination after a mean follow-up period of 8.8 years. RESULTS: The analysis performed among 78 patients showed no incidence of any structural damage to the ascending aorta at the intraoperative position of the endoaortic balloon. The physical and mental summary scores are equal to those of comparable patient groups. CONCLUSIONS: The endoaortic occlusion system causes no damage to the aortic wall. If the system causes any problems, they occur immediately during surgery. Patients treated with this minimally invasive technique exhibited the same quality of life as those undergoing conventional surgery.

Sutureless aortic valve replacement with the 3f Enable aortic bioprosthesis.

PURPOSE: Important comorbid conditions in elderly patients referred for aortic valve replacement require alternative treatment options with possible reduction of the extracorporeal circuit time and reliable hemodynamic features. We report on clinical experiences with the sutureless, nitinol-stented 3f Enable (ATS Medical, Minneapolis, MN) aortic valve prosthesis in 32 patients. DESCRIPTION: The procedure was performed using cardiopulmonary bypass with cardioplegic arrest. After resection of the stenotic aortic valve and debridement of the annulus, the valve was inserted and released. Mean age was 78 +/- 3; mean logistic Euroscore was 13.7. Concomitant procedures were mitral valve and tricuspid valve repair (n = 1), coronary artery bypass graft (n = 9), and subvalvular myectomy (n = 3). EVALUATION: Implantation of the valve required 9 +/- 5 minutes. Cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic cross-clamp time were 87 +/- 16 and 55 +/- 11 minutes for stand-alone procedures. Combined procedures required 126 +/- 42 and 84 +/- 28 minutes, respectively. Two patients were abandoned intraoperatively and converted to standard procedures due to misalignment of the valve. In the other 30 patients, no paravalvular leakage was detected. The transvalvular gradient at discharge was 9 +/- 6 mm Hg (mean) and 18 +/- 9 mm Hg (peak). Six months after surgery, gradients were 10 +/- 4 mm Hg (mean) and 18 +/- 6 mm Hg (peak). CONCLUSIONS: Sutureless valve implantation is feasible and safe with the 3f Enable (ATS Medical) bioprosthesis. Reduction of cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic cross-clamp time seems to be possible with increasing experience. Hemodynamic data are promising with low gradients at discharge and after 6 months.

Valve opening and closing dynamics after different aortic valve-sparing operations.

BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE STUDY: Aortic valve resuspension for ascending aortic aneurysm repair is associated with removal of the sinus of Valsalva. This may cause changes in leaflet motion and thus impact on long-term durability. The opening and closing characteristics of the aortic valve leaflets after reimplantation were studied using a published technique and a modification to create a 'neosinus', and the results compared to those of an age-matched control group. METHODS: Between September 1995 and March 2002, 25 patients underwent normal aortic root reconstruction (group A), while in a further 21 patients the modified neosinus technique was used (group B). In both groups, the native valve was preserved and suspended inside a tubular prosthesis, with reimplantation of the coronary arteries. Transthoracic and transesophageal studies of aortic valve dynamics were performed intraoperatively, before hospital discharge, and at one year after surgery in all patients; the data were compared with those from a separate group of 25 matched control individuals (group C). RESULTS: The valve opening velocity was 61.3+/-20.1, 46.3+/-8 and 29.2+/-9.8 cm/s in groups A, B and C, respectively (group A versus B, p = 0.003; A versus C, p <0.0001; B versus C, p <0.0001). Closing velocity was increased to 57.5+/-23 and 43.8+/-7 cm/s in groups A and B, compared to 23.6+/-7 cm/s in group C (A versus B, p = 0.012; A versus C, p <0.0001; B versus C, p = 0.0002). In seven group A patients, the leaflets touched the prosthetic wall during systole. Slow systolic closing displacement (SCD) amounted to 7.3+/-6 % of maximal opening in group A and 12.6+/-5 % in group B (p = 0.05), compared to 21.1+/-8.3% in group C (group A versus group C, p <0.0001; B versus C, p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: Reimplantation of the natural aortic valve in a prosthetic graft causes abnormally high opening and closing speeds, with possibly increased stress. The study results showed lower valve opening and closure dynamics after the creation of a sinus bulge compared to the conventional reimplantation technique. However, mid-term clinical observations showed favorable valve competence for both types of repair. Further long-term follow up is necessary to prove whether more physiological leaflet dynamics lead to improved durability.