Reply to Jasinski M et al.: "Indeed, there is still room for improvement in long-term durability of BAV repair".

We read the letter to the editor by Dr Jasinski et al. entitled "Long-term durability of valve-sparing or repair procedures in BAV-Is there room for improvement?" with great interest.

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.

Does the body mass index predict mortality after isolated aortic valve replacement?

BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE STUDY: Data relating to the impact of body mass index (BMI) on outcomes after isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR) are scarce and controversial. The study aim was to investigate the predictive value of BMI for early and late mortality after isolated AVR. METHODS: Data obtained from patients who underwent isolated AVR between January 1998 and December 2010 at the authors' institution were analyzed retrospectively. Patients were allocated to five groups according to the preoperative BMI: underweight (BMI < 20 kg/m2); normal weight (BMI 20.0-24.9 kg/m2); overweight (BMI 25.0-29.9 kg/m2); obese (BMI 30.0-34.9 kg/m2); and morbidly obese (BMI > 34.9 kg/m2). Logistic and Cox regression analyses were performed to identify the independent predictors of early and late mortality, respectively. RESULTS: After excluding 20 patients who were lost to follow up, and 30 patients with missing preoperative BMI data, a total of 1,758 patients was included in the analysis. The mean follow up was 5.6 +/- 3.5 years (range: 0-13.4 years), and the mean BMI 26.8 +/- 4.3 kg/m2 (range: 17-52 kg/m2). Multivariate logistic regression analyses showed no association between early mortality and the BMI groups. Multivariate Cox regression analyses showed 'underweight' to be an independent predictor for late mortality (hazard ratio 2.89; 95% confidence interval 1.63-5.13, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: 'Underweight' is an independent predictor for late mortality after AVR surgery. Morbid obesity did not prove to be predictive of a worse late survival.