Chronic mitral valve rejection requiring replacement in a nine-year-old allograft.

A 43-year-old woman underwent mitral valve replacement for severe mitral regurgitation nine years after orthotopic heart transplant. Histopathology showed chronic rejection of the mitral valve with lymphocytic infiltrates. The patient is well at one year follow-up. This report describes an identified case of chronic mitral valve rejection requiring valve replacement.

Acute type A aortic dissection complicated by aortic regurgitation: composite valve graft versus separate valve graft versus conservative valve repair.

OBJECTIVE: To clarify the merits of various surgical approaches, we studied the outcome after composite valve graft versus separate valve and graft replacement versus conservative valve treatment with replacement of the ascending aorta in patients with acute type A aortic dissection complicated by aortic regurgitation. METHODS: Between 1967 and 1999, 123 patients (mean age 56 +/- 15 years) underwent composite valve graft replacement (n = 21), separate valve and graft replacement (n = 20), or conservative valve treatment (n = 82 [commissural resuspension in 46]); follow-up averaged 6.5 years (95% complete). RESULTS: The 30-day, 1-year, and 6-year survival estimates of 85% +/- 4%, 79% +/- 5%, and 69% +/- 5% (+/-1 standard error of mean), respectively, after conservative valve treatment were similar to 86% +/- 8%, 81% +/- 9%, and 65% +/- 16%, respectively, with composite valve graft replacement and better (but insignificantly so) than 70% +/- 10%, 70% +/- 10%, and 45% +/- 11%, respectively, with separate valve and graft replacement. The 6-year freedom from proximal reoperation was 95% +/- 3%, 89% +/- 10%, and 100% in conservative valve graft, separate valve and graft, and composite valve graft subgroups, respectively (P = not significant). Cox regression multivariable analysis identified that previous sternotomy (hazard ratio [or e(beta)] 95% confidence interval 1.4-10.9, P =.006), hypertension (0.99-2.9, P =.05), cardiac tamponade (1.1-4.0, P =.03), and stroke (1.7-7.0, P =.001) increased the hazard of death. No factors predicting a higher likelihood of late proximal reoperation were identified. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with acute type A aortic dissection and aortic regurgitation, there was no significant difference in overall survival or reoperation rates among these surgical approaches. We try to save the valve whenever possible unless the aortic root is pathologically dilated (eg, Marfan syndrome or annuloaortic ectasia) or destroyed by the dissection process, when composite valve graft or valve-sparing aortic root replacement is indicated.

Is medical therapy still the optimal treatment strategy for patients with acute type B aortic dissections?

OBJECTIVE: The optimal treatment of patients with acute type B dissections continues to be debated. METHODS: A 36-year clinical experience of medical and surgical treatments in 189 patients was retrospectively analyzed (multivariable Cox proportional hazards model) with respect to three outcome end points: all deaths, freedom from reoperation, and freedom from late aortic complications or death. Propensity score analysis identified 2 quintiles (quintiles I and II, consisting of 142 comparable patients) for further comparison of the effects of surgical versus medical treatment. RESULTS: Shock (hazard ratio 14.5, 95% confidence interval 4.7-44.5, P <.001) and visceral ischemia (hazard ratio 10.9, 95% confidence interval 3.9-30.3, P <.001) largely predominated as determinants of death, along with 6 other risk factors (arch involvement, rupture, stroke, previous sternotomy, and coronary or lung disease), which roughly doubled the hazard of death. Female sex was a significant but weaker predictor of death. Renal dysfunction, year of presentation, age, and mode of therapy (medical vs surgical) had no important bearing on overall survival. The actuarial survival estimates for all patients were 71%, 60%, 35%, and 17% at 1, 5, 10, and 15 years, respectively, and were similar for the medical and surgical patients. Reoperation and late aortic complications were predicted by the presence of Marfan syndrome. For the propensity-matched patients in quintiles I and II, survival, freedom from reoperation, and freedom from aortic complications were almost identical in the medically treated and surgical subsets. CONCLUSIONS: The prognosis for patients with acute type B aortic dissection is bleak and determined primarily by dissection-related and patient-specific risk factors, which do not appear to be readily modifiable.

Does profound hypothermic circulatory arrest improve survival in patients with acute type a aortic dissection?

OBJECTIVE: No evidence exists that profound hypothermic circulatory arrest (PHCA) improves survival or reduces the likelihood of distal aortic reoperation in patients with acute type A aortic dissection. METHODS: Records of 307 patients with acute type A aortic dissection from 1967 to 1999 were retrospectively reviewed. The influence of repair using PHCA (n=121) versus without PHCA (n=186) on death and freedom from distal aortic reoperation was analyzed using multivariable Cox regression models. Propensity score analysis identified a subset of 152 comparable patients in 3 quintiles (QIII-V) in which the effects of PHCA (n=113) versus no PHCA (n=39) were further compared. RESULTS: For all patients, 30-day, 1-year, and 5-year survival estimates were 81+/-2%, 74+/-3%, and 63+/-3% (+/-1 SE). Survival rates and actual freedom from distal aortic reoperation was not significantly different between treatment methods in the entire patient cohort nor in the matched patients in quintiles III-V. Treatment method was not associated with differences in early major complications, late survival, or distal aortic reoperation rates in the entire patient sample or in quintiles III-V. CONCLUSIONS: Aortic repair with or without circulatory arrest was associated with comparable early complications, survival, and distal aortic reoperation rates in patients with acute type A aortic dissection. Despite the lack of concrete evidence favoring the use of PHCA, it does no harm, and most of our group uses PHCA regularly because of its practical technical advantages and theoretical potential merit.