Effect of graft sizing in valve-sparing aortic root replacement for bicuspid aortic valve: The Goldilocks ratio.

Objective: To investigate the effect of graft sizing on valve performance in valve-sparing aortic root replacement for bicuspid aortic valve. Methods: In addition to a diseased control model, 3 representative groups-free-edge length to aortic/graft diameter (FELAD) ratio <1.3, 1.5 to 1.64, and >1.7-were replicated in explanted porcine aortic roots (n = 3) using straight grafts sized respective to the native free-edge length. They were run on a validated ex vivo univentricular system under physiological parameters for 20 cycles. All groups were tested within the same aortic root to minimize inter-root differences. Outcomes included transvalvular gradient, regurgitation fraction, and orifice area. Linear mixed effects model and pairwise comparisons were employed to compare outcomes across groups. Results: The diseased control had mean transvalvular gradient 10.9 ± 6.30 mm Hg, regurgitation fraction 32.5 ± 4.91%, and orifice area 1.52 ± 0.12 cm2. In ex vivo analysis, all repair groups had improved regurgitation compared with control (P < .001). FELAD <1.3 had the greatest amount of regurgitation among the repair groups (P < .001) and 1.5-1.64 the least (P < .001). FELAD <1.3 and >1.7 exhibited greater mean gradient compared with both control and 1.5 to 1.64 (P < .001). Among the repair groups, 1.5 to 1.64 had the largest orifice area, and >1.7 the smallest (P < .001). Conclusions: For a symmetric bicuspid aortic valve, performance after valve-sparing aortic root replacement shows a bimodal distribution across graft size. As the FELAD ratio departs from 1.5 to 1.64 in either direction, significant increases in transvalvular gradient are observed. FELAD <1.3 may also result in suboptimal improvement of baseline regurgitation.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation for pure aortic insufficiency in a patient following David-type aortic valve-sparing root replacement after aortic dissection-A successful off-label procedure.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has traditionally been indicated for the treatment of aortic stenosis. However, in this case report, we describe a successful TAVI procedure in a 46-year-old male patient who had previously undergone David aortic valve-sparing aortic root replacement for type 1 aortic dissection. The patient presented with aortic valve insufficiency 4 years after the initial surgery and was subsequently treated with a 34 mm Medtronic CoreValve Evolut R prosthesis via TAVI. This case highlights the feasibility of TAVI as a viable treatment option for postoperative aortic valve insufficiency in patients with prior ascending aortic or aortic arch surgery.

A 3D-Printed Externally Adjustable Symmetrically Extensible (EASE) Aortic Annuloplasty Ring for Root Repair and Aortic Valve Regurgitation.

PURPOSE: The valve-sparing aortic root replacement (VSARR) procedure was developed to preserve the aortic valve apparatus to replace aneurysmal aortic roots with synthetic grafts and to eliminate associated aortic regurgitation (AR). However, residual post-repair AR is not uncommon and has been found to be associated with recurrent AR and future reoperation. METHODS: We designed and manufactured a 3D-printed, external adjustable symmetrically extensible (EASE) aortic annuloplasty ring that can symmetrically reduce the aortic annulus diameter via a radial constriction, compliant mechanism. An ex vivo porcine VSARR model with annular dilation and AR was developed (n = 4) and used for hemodynamic, echocardiography, and high-speed videography data collection. RESULTS: After ring annuloplasty repair using the EASE aortic ring, the regurgitant fraction decreased from 23.6 ± 6.9% from the VSARR model to 7.4 ± 5.6% (p = 0.05), which was similar to that measured from baseline with a regurgitant fraction of 10.2 ± 3.9% (p = 0.34). The leaflet coaptation height after annuloplasty repair also significantly increased from that measured in VSARR model (0.4 ± 0.1 cm) to 0.9 ± 0.1 cm (p = 0.0004), a level similar to that measured in baseline (1.1 ± 0.1 cm, p = 0.28). CONCLUSION: Using an ex vivo VSARR model, the EASE ring successfully reduced AR by reducing the annular diameter and improving leaflet coaptation. With its broad applicability and ease of use, this device has the potential to have a significant impact on patients suffering worldwide from AR due to root aneurysms.

Short and mid-term outcomes of valve-sparing, aortic root reimplantation (David's procedure).

BACKGROUND: In the current study, we aimed to report the short- and mid-term outcomes of patients undergoing valve-sparing aortic root reimplantation (VSARR) and our center's experience with the procedure. METHODS: Forty patients with aortic root aneurysms underwent VSARR at our center from 2010 until 2022. We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of these patients and extracted the relevant data. After carefully examining the aortic valve, the surgeon decided to perform Bentall or David's procedure during the operation. RESULTS: The study population comprised 31 (77.5%) men and nine (22.5%) women, with a mean age of 55.35 ± 15.40. One patient developed hemodynamic instability post-surgery in the hospital and died from multi-organ failure. Another patient had severe AI in the intraoperative echocardiography, and aortic valve replacement with a prosthetic graft was performed during the same operation. In pre-operation echocardiography, 25 (62.5%) patients had severe, nine (22.5%) had moderate, and six (15%) had mild AI. In the in-hospital post-operation follow-up echo, AI was improved, and no patients had severe AI (P < 0.001). Only eight patients had moderate AI in post-one-year follow-up echo exams, while the rest had mild AI. CONCLUSION: David's procedure showed excellent mid-term results in our center, with only one in-hospital mortality.

The mid-term outcomes of aortic root replacement after surgical repair for CHD.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to assess the mid-term outcomes of aortic root replacement after repair of CHDs. METHOD: This is a single-institutional retrospective, cohort study with consecutive patients undergoing aortic root replacement after surgical repair of CHDs between 1999 and 2022. Operative indications included aortic root dilatation with/without aortic insufficiency, sinus of Valsalva rupture, or aortic dissection involving the root. RESULTS: Forty-four patients (36 male and 8 female) were enrolled. Mean age at the root replacement was 36.6 ± 11.9 years. The most frequent primary diagnosis was congenital aortic stenosis (n = 10) and ventricular septal defect (n = 10). Mean time from the surgical repair to aortic root replacement was 26.6 ± 13.0 years. Operative indications were aortic root enlargement with or without aortic valve aetiology (n = 40), sinus of Valsalva rupture (n = 2), and aortic dissection (n = 2). Forty-two patients underwent valve-replacing aortic root replacement, and two patients underwent valve-sparing, with 40 concomitant procedures. The median follow-up was 3.5 (1.3-7.6) years. There were one early and five late mortalities and five cardiovascular-related reoperations. Actuarial survival at 5-10 years after root replacement was 81.0 ± 6.6%. The cumulative incidence of cardiovascular-related reoperation and aortic root or valve-related reoperation at 5 years after root replacement was 11.9% and 5.6%, respectively. CONCLUSION: The early and mid-term outcomes of aortic root replacement for patients with a history of repair of CHDs were favourable in terms of survival and aortic root or valve-related reoperation.

Outcomes of neo-aortic valve and root surgery late after arterial switch operation.

BACKGROUND: Neo-aortic root dilatation and valve regurgitation are emerging problems late after arterial switch operation (ASO). We sought to evaluate the prevalence and outcomes of neo-aortic root or valve reoperation after ASO. METHODS: All patients with biventricular circulation who underwent an ASO between 1983 and 2015 were included at a single institution. RESULTS: In our cohort of 782 late ASO survivors, the median duration of follow-up was 18.1 years (interquartile range [IQR], 11.3-25.6 years). During follow-up, 47 patients (6.0%) underwent 60 reoperations on the neo-aortic valve/root. The first neo-aortic valve/root reoperation occurred at a median of 15.2 years (IQR, 7.8-18.4 years) after ASO. Operations included mechanical Bentall (31.9%; n = 15), aortic valve repair (25.5%; n = 12), mechanical aortic valve replacement (AVR) (21.3%; n = 10), valve-sparing root replacement (19.1%; n = 9), and the Ross procedure (2.1%; n = 1). There was 1 late death (2.1%). Multivariable predictors of neo-aortic valve/root reoperation were bicuspid valve (hazard ratio [HR], 4.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.1-10.7; P < .001), Taussig-Bing anomaly (HR, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.2-7.4; P < .02), previous pulmonary artery band (HR, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.2-6.3; P < .01) and left ventricular outflow tract obstruction before ASO (HR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.0-5.8; P < .04). Freedom from neo-aortic valve or root reoperation was 98.0% (95% CI, 96.7%-98.8%) at 10 years, 93.3% (95% CI, 90.8%-95.2%) at 20 years, and 88.5% (95% CI, 84.1%-91.8%) at 30 years after ASO. Among the 47 patients who underwent neo-aortic reoperation, freedom from AVR was 82.3% (95% CI, 67.7%-90.7%) at 10 years, 58.0% (95% CI, 41.8%-71.2%) at 20 years, and 43.2% (95% CI, 27.0%-58.3%) at 25 years after ASO. CONCLUSIONS: The need for neo-aortic valve or root reoperation surpasses 10% by 30 years post-ASO. Evolving understanding of the mechanisms of neo-aortic valve insufficiency and techniques of neo-aortic valve repair may decrease the need for AVR.

Midterm Clinical Outcomes of Reimplantation Versus Remodeling Valve-Sparing Aortic Root Replacement in Patients With Connective Tissue Disorders: A Meta-Analysis.

This meta-analysis aimed to compare the midterm clinical outcomes of reimplantation versus remodeling techniques for valve-sparing aortic root replacement (VSARR) in patients with connective tissue disorders (CTDs). Studies were screened and identified after the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines from the PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase databases. Forest plots were produced using Review Manager 5.3 (Cochrane, UK). Studies comparing early and midterm clinical outcomes of reimplantation versus remodeling VSARR in patients with CTD with a mean age ≥18 years were included. The sensitivity analysis excluded studies and subgroups of patients that received ring or suture annuloplasty in addition to remodeling surgery. The study selection identified 9 eligible studies. After analysis of the study period and location for patient crossover, 7 retrospective studies consisting of 597 patients (301 reimplantation and 296 remodeling) were pooled. The pooling revealed no significant difference in postoperative mortality (estimated mean follow-up of 10.5 years) (odds ratio [OR] 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.30 to 1.48, I2 = 30%, p = 0.32), reoperation (OR 0.35, CI 0.04 to 3.30, I2 = 81%, p = 0.36), or occurrence of postoperative aortic regurgitation of ≥2 (OR 0.56, CI 0.31 to 1.02, I2 = 47%, p = 0.06). The sensitivity analysis excluding annuloplasty demonstrated improved mortality (OR 0.19, CI 0.06 to 0.64, I2 = 0%, p = 0.007) and decreased aortic regurgitation of ≥2 (OR 0.23, CI 0.10 to 0.53, I2 = 47%, p = 0.0005) in reimplantation VSARR. The rates of reoperation remained insignificant in the sensitivity analysis (OR 0.43, CI 0.05 to 3.53, I2 = 71%, p = 0.43). In conclusion, this meta-analysis has demonstrated no significant difference in the midterm clinical outcomes of reimplantation versus remodeling techniques of VSARR. The sensitivity analysis excluding studies and patient subgroups that received remodeling and annuloplasty suggests remodeling alone to be inferior to reimplantation in patients with CTDs. Further research is required to assess remodeling and annuloplasty against reimplantation in patients of this demographic because the current body of knowledge does not allow sufficient analysis.

Outcomes of aortic root replacement with tricuspid aortic valve reimplantation in patients with residual aortic regurgitation.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize residual aortic regurgitation (AR), identify its risk factors, and evaluate outcomes following aortic root replacement with aortic valve reimplantation. METHODS: From 2002 to 2020, 756 patients with a tricuspid aortic valve underwent elective reimplantation for aortic root aneurysm. AR on transthoracic echocardiograms before hospital discharge was graded as mild or greater. Machine learning was used to identify risk factors for residual AR and subsequent aortic valve reoperation. RESULTS: Sixty-five patients (8.6%) had mild (58 [7.7%]) or moderate (7 [0.93%]) residual postoperative AR. They had more severe preoperative AR (38% vs 12%; P < .0001), thickened cusps (7.7% vs 2.2%; P = .008), aortic valve repair (38% vs 23%; P = .004), and multiple returns to cardiopulmonary bypass for additional repair (11% vs 3.3%; P = .003) than those without AR. Predictors of residual AR were severe preoperative AR, smaller aortic root graft, and concomitant cusp repair. At 10 years, patients with versus without residual AR had more moderate or severe AR (48% vs 7.0%; P < .0001) and freedom from reoperation was worse (89% vs 98%; P < .0001). Residual AR was a risk factor for early reoperation. Concomitant coronary bypass, lower body mass index, and lower ejection fraction were risk factors for late reoperation. Ten-year survival was similar among patients with and without residual AR (97% vs 93%; P = .43). CONCLUSIONS: Residual AR after elective reimplantation of a tricuspid aortic valve for aortic root aneurysm is uncommon. Patients with severe preoperative AR and those who undergo valve repair have higher risk for residual AR, which can progress and increase risk of aortic valve reoperation.

Clinical effectiveness of valve-sparing aortic root replacement in the treatment of patients with dilated aortic root after operation for tetralogy of Fallot / 中国胸心血管外科临床杂志

@#Objective     To evaluate the clinical effectiveness of valve-sparing aortic root replacement (VSARR) in the treatment of patients with dilated aortic root after operation for tetralogy of Fallot (TOF). Methods     A retrospective analysis was conducted on clinical data of TOF patients with aortic root dilation who underwent VSARR in our hospital from 2016 to 2022. Results     Finally 14 patients were collected, including 8 males and 6 females, with a median age of 22 years ranging from 12-48 years. Among them, 5 patients had severe aortic valve regurgitation, 4 moderate regurgitation, and 5 mild or no regurgitation. Six patients had sinus of valsalva dilation, and 8 significant dilation of the ascending aorta. One patient had residual shunt due to ventricular septal defect, and 9 severe pulmonary valve regurgitation. The David procedure was performed in 10 patients, Yacoub procedure in 2 patients, and Florida sleeve in 2 patients. There was no perioperative mortality in the group. The median follow-up time was 2.9 years (ranging from 0.4 to 6.0 years). One patient had mild aortic valve regurgitation, and the rest had minimal or no regurgitation. One patient had mild stenosis of the left ventricular outflow tract, and the rest patients had no obvious stenosis. Conclusion     VSARR is a satisfactory treatment for aortic root dilation in patients with TOF, with no significant increase in the incidence of left ventricular outflow tract stenosis or aortic regurgitation during mid-term follow-up.

Survival and repair durability in patients undergoing concomitant aortic valve reimplantation and mitral valve repair.

Objective: The study objective was to determine repair durability and survival in patients with and without connective tissue disorders undergoing concomitant aortic valve reimplantation and mitral valve repair. Methods: From 2002 to 2019, 68 patients underwent concomitant aortic valve reimplantation and mitral valve repair, including 27 patients with Marfan syndrome (39.7%). Follow-up echocardiograms were analyzed using nonlinear multiphase mixed-effects cumulative logistic regression. The regurgitation grade over time was estimated by averaging patient-specific profiles. Survival and freedom from reoperation were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: At 7 years, 11% of patients had aortic insufficiency greater than mild (severe in 2 patients). There was no difference in greater than mild aortic insufficiency between patients with or without Marfan syndrome (P = .37). Twenty percent of patients had progressed to mitral regurgitation greater than mild (severe in only 1 patient). The prevalence of recurrent mitral regurgitation was higher in those without Marfan syndrome, with greater than mild regurgitation increasing to 24% by 2 years and remaining constant thereafter (P = .04). Freedom from reoperation on the aortic valve or mitral valve was 83% at 10 years and did not differ between Marfan syndrome groups. There were no cases of perioperative mortality. Survival at 5 and 10 years was 94% and 87%, respectively, without a difference between those with and without Marfan syndrome. Conclusions: Patients can undergo a total repair strategy using combined aortic valve reimplantation and mitral valve repair procedures with a low risk of mortality and complications, with favorable freedom from both residual valve regurgitation and reoperation.

Outcomes of aortic root replacement in patients with Marfan syndrome: the role of valve-sparing and valve-replacing approaches.

Background: Marfan syndrome (MFS) is a heritable thoracic aortic disease with pervasive cardiovascular effects, including commonly, a dilated aortic root. Traditionally, the root is replaced using a mechanical composite valve graft (CVG); however, this valve-replacing (VR) approach necessitates a lifelong regimen of anticoagulation with a potential for late bleeding complications. In time, valve-sparing (VS) approaches were developed. Today, several options for aortic root replacement (ARR) exist; each has advantages and disadvantages that helps inform choice. The Aortic Valve Operative Outcomes in Marfan Patients (AVOMP) is a multi-center international registry to analyze clinical outcomes of ARR in MFS patients using either VR or VS techniques to better elucidate choice. We summarize outcomes of AVOMP and present our own experience. Methods: We performed 223 consecutive elective ARR [1991-2023] in patients with MFS; 15 such repairs were included in AVOMP. Repairs included 113 (51%) using a mechanical CVG, 62 (28%) using a VS approach, and 48 (22%) using a bioprosthetic root. Many patients underwent aortic arch repair (30% to 54% by type). Results: The median patient age was 38 [29-52] years. In comparing VS and VR groups, patients were similar in age and rates of major comorbidities and symptoms. Patients with VR repair had a more complex aortic history. The rate of redo sternotomy was 24% (n=54). Operative death was uncommon [4% overall (10/223); ranging from 2% to 8% by type], and stroke was rare [1/223 (<1%)]. Late survival and reoperation differed by operative approach; survival was improved in patients who underwent VS repair. Conclusions: We found that repair in patients with MFS undergoing ARR resulted in low operative risk. Our late results were similar to those of AVOMP in that patients undergoing VS repair tended to experience greater rates of valvular-structural deterioration, although this did not appear to impact survival.

Biomechanics and clinical outcomes of various conduit configurations in valve sparing aortic root replacement.

Background: Several conduit configurations, such as straight graft (SG), Valsalva graft (VG), anticommissural plication (ACP), and the Stanford modification (SMOD) technique, have been described for the valve-sparing aortic root replacement (VSARR) procedure. Prior ex vivo studies have evaluated the impact of conduit configurations on root biomechanics, but the mock coronary artery circuits used could not replicate the physical properties of native coronary arteries. Moreover, the individual leaflet's biomechanics, including the fluttering phenomenon, were unclear. Methods: Porcine aortic roots with coronary arteries were explanted (n=5) and underwent VSARR using SG, VG, ACP, and SMOD for evaluation in an ex vivo left heart flow loop simulator. Additionally, 762 patients who underwent VSARR from 1993 through 2022 at our center were retrospectively reviewed. Analysis of variance was performed to evaluate differences between different conduit configurations, with post hoc Tukey's correction for pairwise testing. Results: SG demonstrated lower rapid leaflet opening velocity compared with VG (P=0.001) and SMOD (P=0.045) in the left coronary cusp (LCC), lower rapid leaflet closing velocity compared with VG (P=0.04) in the right coronary cusp (RCC), and lower relative opening force compared with ACP (P=0.04) in the RCC. The flutter frequency was lower in baseline compared with VG (P=0.02) and in VG compared with ACP (P=0.03) in the LCC. Left coronary artery mean flow was higher in SG compared with SMOD (P=0.02) and ACP (P=0.05). Clinically, operations using SG compared with sinus-containing graft was associated with shorter aortic cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass time (P<0.001, <0.001). Conclusions: SG demonstrated hemodynamics and biomechanics most closely recapitulating those from the native root with significantly shorter intraoperative times compared with repair using sinus-containing graft. Future in vivo validation studies as well as correlation with comprehensive, comparative clinical study outcomes may provide additional invaluable insights regarding strategies to further enhance repair durability.

Outcomes of valve-sparing aortic root replacement in patients with bicuspid aortic valve and tricuspid aortic valve: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Valve-sparing aortic root replacement (VSARR) is a safe and effective surgical procedure to treat aortic root aneurysm. This meta-analysis aimed to investigate how this procedure might differ in patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) and tricuspid aortic valve (TAV). DESIGN: Meta-analysis with meta-regression and systematic review. SETTING: Systematic search in the following databases: PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase. INTERVENTIONS: All observational studies of VSARR in patients with BAV or TAV were included in our study. Studies were included without any restrictions on language or publication date. A trial sequential analysis and a post-hoc meta-regression was performed on the main outcomes. RESULT: Eleven articles met the inclusion criteria. A total of 1138 patients in BAV group, and 2125 patients in TAV group. No significant differences in gender and age were observed between BAV and TAV patients. BAV and TAV patients showed no differences in in-hospital mortality rate [0.00% vs. 1.93%; RR (95% CI) 0.33 (0.09, 1.26), I2 = 0%, P = 0.11] and the rate of in-hospital reoperation [5.64% vs. 5.99%; RR (95% CI) 1.01(0.59, 1.73), I2 = 33%, P = 0.98]. The overall long-term mortality rate of BAV patients was better than that of TAV patients [1.63% vs. 8.15%; RR (95% CI) 0.34 (0.13, 0.86), I2 = 0%, P = 0.02]. During the follow-up observation period, patients in TAV group showed small but no statistic advantage in 3-year, 5-year, and over 10-year incidences of reintervention. Regarding the secondary endpoints, the two groups showed similar aortic cross-clamping time and total cardiopulmonary bypass time. CONCLUSION: The VSARR techniques yielded similar clinical outcomes in both BAV and TAV patients. Although patients with BAV might have a higher incidence of reinterventions after initial VSARR, it is still a safe and effective approach to treat aortic root dilation with or without aortic valve insufficiency. TAV patients showed small but no statistic advantage in long-term (over 10 years) reintervention rate, which means, patients with BAV may face a higher risk of reintervention in the clinic.

Aortic valve-sparing procedure in the pediatric population.

Background: Aortic valve-sparing procedures have been established as a mainstream treatment option for adult patients with aortic root aneurysms. However, data regarding their use in the pediatric population is limited. This study reports on our experience with aortic valve-sparing procedures in children. Methods: A retrospective review was conducted of all patients who underwent an aortic valve-sparing procedure at the Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia between April 2006 and April 2016. Clinical and echocardiographic data were analyzed. Results: The study included 17 patients, with a median age of 15.7 years and a majority of patients being male (82.4%). The most common diagnosis was transposition of great arteries after arterial switch operation, followed by Loeys-Dietz syndrome and Marfan syndrome. Preoperative echocardiography showed more than moderate aortic regurgitation in 94.1% of the patients. The David procedure was performed in all 17 patients, with no mortality during follow-up. Reoperation was required in 29.4% of patients, and 23.5% required aortic valve replacement. Freedom from reoperation for aortic valve replacement at 1, 5, and 10 years was 93.8%, 93.8% and 68.2% respectively. Conclusions: Aortic valve-sparing surgery can be successfully performed in the pediatric population. However, it requires a highly skilled surgeon due to the often dysplastic or distorted nature of these valves and the need for additional procedures on the aortic valve leaflets.

Is valve-sparing aortic root replacement better than total aortic root replacement? An overview of reviews.

Background: Total aortic root replacement (TRR) is certainly beneficial for aortic root disease, but does it still have an advantageous prognosis for patients compared to valve-sparing aortic root replacement (VSRR)? An overview of reviews was conducted to assess each of their clinical efficacy/effectiveness. Review methods: Systematic reviews (SRs)/Meta-analyses comparing the prognosis of TRR and VSRR in aortic root surgery were collected from 4 databases, all searched from the time of database creation to October 2022. Two evaluators independently screened the literature, extracted information and applied the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2) tool, Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE), and Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) to evaluate the quality of reporting, methodological quality, risk of bias, and level of evidence of the included studies. Main results: A total of 9 SRs/Meta-analyses were ultimately included. In terms of the reporting quality of the included studies, PRISMA scores ranged from 14 to 22.5, with issues mainly in reporting bias assessment, risk of study bias, credibility of evidence, protocol and registration, and funding sources. The methodological quality of the included SRs/Meta-analyses was generally low, with key items 2, 7, and 13 having major flaws and non-key items 10, 12, and 16. In terms of risk of bias assessment, the overall assessment of the included 9 studies was high-risk. The quality of the evidence was rated as low to very low quality for the three outcome indicators selected for the GRADE quality of evidence rating: early (within 30 days postoperatively or during hospitalization) mortality, late mortality, and valve reintervention rate. Conclusions: VSRR has many benefits including reduced early and late mortality after aortic root surgery and reduced rates of valve-related adverse events, but the methodological quality of the relevant studies is low, and there is a lack of high-quality evidence to support this. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.PROSPERO, identifier: CRD42022381330.

Valve Repair in Aortic Insufficiency: A State-of-the-art Review.

Aortic valve insufficiency (AI) describes the pathology of blood leaking through the aortic valve to the left ventricle during diastole and is classified as mild, moderate or severe according to the volume of regurgitating blood. Intervention is required in severe AI when the patient is symptomatic or when the left ventricular function is impaired. Aortic valve replacement has been considered the gold standard for decades for these patients, but several repair techniques have recently emerged that offer exceptional stability and long-term outcomes. The appropriate method of repair is selected based on the mechanism of AI and each patient's anatomic variations. This review aims to describe different pathologies of AI based on its anatomy, along with the different surgical techniques of aortic repair and their reported results.

Aortic valve cusp repair does not affect durability of modified aortic valve reimplantation for tricuspid aortic valves.

Objective: During aortic valve reimplantation, cusp repair may be needed to produce a competent valve. We investigated whether the need for aortic valve cusp repair affects aortic valve reimplantation durability. Methods: Patients with tricuspid aortic valves who underwent aortic valve reimplantation from January 2002 to January 2020 at a single center were retrospectively analyzed. Propensity matching was used to compare outcomes between patients who did and did not require aortic valve cusp repair. Results: Cusp repair was performed in 181 of 756 patients (24%). Patients who required cusp repair were more often male, were older, had more aortic valve regurgitation, and less often had connective tissue disease. Patients who underwent cusp repair had longer aortic clamp time (124 ± 43 minutes vs 107 ± 36 minutes, P = .001). In-hospital outcomes were similar between groups and with no operative deaths. A total of 98.3% of patients with cusp repair and 99.3% of patients without cusp repair had mild or less aortic regurgitation at discharge. The median follow-up was 3.9 and 3.2 years for the cusp repair and no cusp repair groups, respectively. At 10 years, estimated prevalence of moderate or more aortic regurgitation was 12% for patients with cusp repair and 7.0% for patients without cusp repair (P = .30). Mean aortic valve gradients were 6.2 mm Hg and 8.0 mm Hg, respectively (P = .01). Ten-year freedom from reoperation was 99% versus 99% (P = .64) in the matched cohort and 97% versus 97%, respectively (P = .30), in the unmatched cohort. Survival at 10 years was 98% after cusp repair and 93% without cusp repair (P = .05). Conclusions: Aortic valve reimplantation for patients with tricuspid aortic valves has excellent long-term results. Need for aortic valve cusp repair does not affect long-term outcomes and should not deter surgeons from performing valve-sparing surgery.

Research Progress in Valve-sparing Aortic Root Replacement / 中山大学学报(医学科学版)

With continuous improvements in surgical techniques， medical engineering and material science， root replacement with composite valve graft （CVG） or Bentall procedure has become the standard procedure for aortic root lesions. As an alternative to the Bentall procedure， valve-sparing aortic root replacement （VSRR） avoids the complications associated with lifelong anticoagulation and mechanical valves； reduces the incidence of thromboembolic and bleeding events； and its favorable haemodynamics and potentially lower risk of endocarditis ensure durable postoperative aortic valve function and a much better quality of patient survival. This article reviews the indications for root replacement with preservation of the aortic valve， the key points of the standardized technique and its long-term results in different patients.