Valve-Sparing Root Replacement Versus Bio-Bentall: Inverse Propensity Weighting of 796 Patients.

BACKGROUND: This large cohort, single-center study compared the 10-year survival and freedom from aortic valve reintervention between valve-sparing root replacement (VSRR) and bioprosthetic Bentall (bio-Bentall). METHODS: All patients undergoing elective VSRR or bio-Bentall for aortic root aneurysm between March 2005 through October 2019 were retrospectively reviewed (N = 796; n = 360 for VSRR). Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) balanced clinical variables between groups. Mean follow-up was 58.0 ± 45.4 months (range, 0-167 months). RESULTS: After IPTW adjustment, 10-year survival did not differ between VSRR (87.0%) and bio-Bentall (92.7%, P = 0.780). Cumulative incidence of aortic valve reintervention was 5.9% for VSRR (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.9%-10.4%) and 10.6% for bio-Bentall (95% CI, 6.2%-16.4%; P = .798). A Fine and Gray competing risk regression model identified age at operation (subdistribution hazard ratio [sHR], 0.97; 95% CI, 0.95-0.99; P = .015), body surface area (sHR, 6.21; 95% CI, 1.97-19.59; P = .002), and bicuspid aortic valve (sHR, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.04-4.44; P = .038) as independently associated with aortic valve reintervention. For patients aged 50 years or younger, the cumulative incidence of aortic valve reintervention was 16.2% for VSRR (95% CI, 7.0%-28.8%) and 17.8% for bio-Bentall (95% CI, 6.9%-32.8%; P = .363). CONCLUSIONS: VSRR and bio-Bentall show similar excellent survival and freedom from aortic reintervention rates up to 10 years; however, a durable valve solution for young patients with bicuspid aortic valve remains a challenge.

Incidence, Cause, and Outcome of Reinterventions After Aortic Root Replacement.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to comprehensively characterize details of aortic and aortic valve reinterventions after aortic root replacement (ARR). METHODS: Between 2005 and 2019, 882 patients underwent ARR. Indications were aneurysm in 666, aortic valve related in 116, aortic dissection in 64, and infective endocarditis (IE) in 36. Valve-sparing root replacement was performed in 290 patients, whereas a Bio-Bentall procedure was done in 528. Among them, 52 patients (5.9%) required reintervention. The incidence, cause, and time to reintervention and the outcomes after reintervention were investigated. A cause-specific Cox hazard model was performed to identify predictors for reintervention after ARR. RESULTS: The 10-year cumulative incidence of aortic and aortic valve reintervention after ARR was 10.3% (95% confidence interval, 7.3%-14.0%). Age per year decrease was the only independent predictor for reintervention (subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% confidence interval, 0.95-0.99). The causes for 52 reinterventions were aortic valve causes in 29 patients (55.8%), including aortic stenosis/insufficiency, and prosthetic valve dysfunction; IE in 15 (28.9%); aortic-related causes in 7 (13.5%), including pseudoaneurysm, development of aneurysm, and residual dissection; and coronary button pseudoaneurysm in 1 (1.9%). Median time to reintervention was 11.0 months (interquartile range, 2.0-20.5) for IE, 24.0 months (interquartile range, 3.7-46.1) for aortic-related causes, and 77.0 months (interquartile range, 28.4-97.6) for aortic valve-related causes (P = .005). Overall in-hospital mortality after the reinterventions was 7.7% (4/52) with 20.0% for IE (3/15). CONCLUSIONS: Reintervention for IE occurred relatively early after ARR, whereas aortic valve- and aortic-related reinterventions gradually increased over time. In-hospital mortality after the reintervention was low, with the exception of IE.

Chronic kidney disease stage stratifies short- and long-term outcomes after aortic root replacement.

OBJECTIVES: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is prevalent in patients undergoing cardiovascular surgery, and it negatively impacts procedural outcomes; however, its influence on the outcomes of aortic surgery has not been well studied. This study aims to elucidate the importance of CKD on the outcomes of aortic root replacement (ARR). METHODS: Patients who underwent ARR between 2005 and 2019 were retrospectively reviewed (n = 882). Patients were divided into 3 groups based on the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes criteria: Group 1 [estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ≥ 60 ml/min/1.73 m2, n = 421); Group 2 (eGFR = 30-59 ml/min/1.73 m2, n = 424); and Group 3 (eGFR < 30 ml/min/1.73 m2, n = 37). To reduce potential confounding, a propensity score matching was also performed between Group 1 and the combined group of Group 2 and Group 3. The primary end point was 10-year survival. Secondary end points were in-hospital mortality and perioperative morbidity. RESULTS: Severe CKD patients presented with more advanced overall chronic and acute illnesses. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed a significant correlation between CKD stage and 10-year survival (log-rank P < 0.001). The number of events for Group 1 was 15, Group 2 was 49 and Group 3 was 11 in 10 years. Group 3 had significantly higher in-hospital mortality (13.5% vs 3.5% in Group 2 vs 0.7% in Group 1, P < 0.001) and stroke (8.1% vs 7.1% vs 1.2%, P < 0.001) as well as introduction to new dialysis (27.0% vs 5.4% vs 1.7%, P < 0.001). eGFR was shown to be an independent predictor of mortality (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.96-0.99). Comparison between propensity matched groups showed similar postoperative outcomes, and eGFR was still identified as a predictor of mortality (hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% confidence interval, 0.95-0.99). CONCLUSIONS: Higher stage in CKD negatively impacts the long-term survival in patients who are undergoing ARR.

Assessment of long-term outcomes: aortic valve reimplantation versus aortic valve and root replacement with biological valved conduit in aortic root aneurysm with tricuspid valve.

OBJECTIVES: We compared the long-term outcomes between aortic valve reimplantation [David V (DV)] and aortic valve and root replacement with biological valved conduit [Bentall-De Bono (BD)] for the patients with aortic root aneurysm with tricuspid valve. METHODS: Among 876 patients who underwent aortic root replacement in our institution between 2005 and 2018, 371 patients who underwent DV (n = 199) or BD (n = 172) for aortic root aneurysm with tricuspid valve were retrospectively reviewed. Exclusion criteria included aortic stenosis, infective endocarditis, previous prosthetic aortic valve, bicuspid aortic valve, aortic dissection and mechanical Bentall procedure. Propensity score matching was performed based on the patient characteristics, matching 90 patients in each group. The primary end point was all-cause mortality. Secondary end points were reoperation for any cause and specifically for aortic valve-related cause. RESULTS: After propensity score matching, DV and BD groups each had 1 in-hospital mortality (1.1%). Survival at 10 years was 95.3% [95% confidence interval (CI) 85.8-98.5] in DV and 98.6% (95% CI 90.8-99.8) in BD (P = 0.345). The cumulative incidences of reoperation at 10 years in DV versus BD were 3.9% (95% CI 0.7-11.8) vs 18.1% (95% CI 6.9-33.4) for any cause (P = 0.046) and 1.9% (95% CI 0.1-8.8) vs 15.9% (95% CI 5.5-31.4) for aortic valve-related causes (P = 0.032). The reasons for valve-related reoperation were aortic insufficiency (3/5 in DV vs 5/10 in BD), aortic stenosis (0/5 vs 2/10) and infective endocarditis (2/5 vs 3/10). CONCLUSIONS: Both DV and BD procedures for patients with aortic root aneurysm with tricuspid valve resulted in excellent 10-year survival. All-cause and aortic valve-related reoperations were significantly less frequent with valve-sparing root replacement, suggesting an advantage of DV over biological BD.