Aortic root anatomy: insights into annular and root enlargement techniques.

The introduction of the Y(ang)-technique for aortic root enlargement has sparked a renewed interest in annular and root enlargement procedures world-wide. In order to execute these procedures proficiently however, it's important to understand the complex three-dimensional structure of the aortic root and left ventricular outflow tract, and also be familiar with the different enlargement techniques. Herein, we are providing a description of the aortic root anatomy and the most commonly utilized root enlargement procedures. This should facilitate clinical decision making and guidance of patients towards the most appropriate procedure, which should not only treat the patients' acute symptoms, but should also set the patient up for potentially needed future procedures and respective life-time management of aortic valve disease.

Comparison of the short-term outcomes between Y-incision aortic annular enlargement and traditional aortic annular enlargement techniques.

Background: The short-term efficacy and safety of the Y-incision technique of aortic annular enlargement (AAE) has been established. We aimed to determine how the short-term outcomes of the Y-incision technique compared to traditional AAE techniques. Methods: From February 2011 to June 2022, 380 patients at the University of Michigan Hospital underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR) with AAE using either traditional annular enlargement techniques (Traditional group, n=270), including Nicks [63% (171/270)], Manouguian [34% (91/270)], and others [3% (8/270)], or the Y-incision technique (Y-incision group, n=110). Propensity score matching was performed by controlling for age, sex, body surface area (BSA), hypertension, diabetes, dialysis, chronic lung disease, stroke, prior cardiac surgery, primary indication, operative status, concomitant procedures, and prosthesis type, to generate a balanced cohort of 103 pairs. Results: There were no differences in demographics, comorbidities, primary indications of the operations, or concomitant procedures between the matched groups. The median native aortic annulus diameter, measured in the operating room, was 21 mm for both groups. Median prosthesis size was 23 in the Traditional group, and 27 in the Y-incision group (P<0.001). There were no differences in perioperative complications/outcomes between the matched groups, including operative mortality, which was 3.9% (8/206) overall. Short-term survival was similar between the groups on Kaplan-Meier analysis; one-year survival was 95% in the Traditional group, and 97% in the Y-incision group (P=0.54). The Y-incision group had significantly lower mean aortic valve gradients (7 vs. 10 mmHg, P<0.001), larger aortic valve areas (2.2 vs. 1.8 cm2, P=0.007), and less moderate/severe patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) (5.5% vs. 23%, P=0.039) on one-year follow-up echocardiography. Conclusions: The Y-incision technique was as safe and more effective in enlarging the aortic annulus and upsizing the prosthetic valve than the traditional techniques of AAE in AVR for small aortic annuli.

Early and mid-term outcomes of aortic annular enlargement: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: There is mounting evidence at experienced centers that aortic annular enlargement (AAE) procedures are safe adjuncts to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) that do not increase perioperative morbidity and mortality. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to assess the impact of AAE procedures on mid-term outcomes after SAVR. Methods: OVID MEDLINE, OVID Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched comprehensively. Comparative studies examining adult patients undergoing SAVR with and without AAE were eligible for inclusion. Studies involving aortic root replacement, Ross procedures, and Ozaki procedures were excluded. The risk of bias was assessed according to Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I), and the quality of evidence was evaluated according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Random effects meta-analysis facilitated the quantitative synthesis. Results: A total of 2,765 records were retrieved. After full-text review, 15 eligible studies were identified for data extraction and synthesis. The dataset included a total of 216,654 patients (AAE: 7,967; no AAE: 208,687). Only mid-term outcomes were available. In unmatched and unadjusted studies, perioperative mortality was noted to be higher in the AAE group. However, this difference was not observed in studies with matching or adjusted outcomes. In both the unmatched and unadjusted studies, and the matched and adjusted studies, there were no statistically significant differences identified regarding perioperative stroke, myocardial infarction, or permanent pacemaker implantation. Similarly, there were no statistically significant differences identified in mid-term mortality [hazard ratio (HR), 1.03; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.95 to 1.11; P=0.49; I2=20% (matched/adjusted studies)], aortic valve reintervention [HR, 0.98; 95% CI: 0.75 to 1.27; P=0.86; I2=0% (matched/adjusted studies)], or heart failure [HR, 1.06; 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.30; P=0.58; I2=25% (matched/adjusted studies)]. Conclusions: SAVR with AAE does not appear to be associated with increased perioperative morbidity or mortality. There is no conclusive indication that AAE enhances mid-term survival, freedom from reoperation, or freedom from heart failure after SAVR.

Aortic annular enlargement with Y-incision/rectangular patch.

The Y-incision/rectangular patch aortic annular enlargement (Y-incision AAE) is our go-to technique for aortic annular/root enlargement at the University of Michigan for its simplicity and effectiveness. A complete aortotomy is used for first-time surgical aortic valve replacements (SAVRs), and a partial aortotomy is frequently used in reoperative SAVR. The Y-incision is made through the left-non commissure, underneath the aortic annulus to the left and right fibrous trigones. A rectangular patch is sewn to the aorto-mitral curtain from the left fibrous trigone to the right fibrous trigone and transitioned to the aortic annulus on both sides. The enlarged aortic annulus/root is sized with the valve-shape end of the sizer, and the largest size that can touch all three nadirs of the aortic annulus with one strut facing the left-right commissure is chosen. The non-pledgetted valve sutures are placed in a non-everting suture fashion on the aortic annulus, and inside-outside-inside on the patch. The sutures at the nadir of the non-coronary sinus and left coronary sinus are tied first. The proximal ascending aorta is enlarged with a posterior longitudinal aortotomy, and the distal end of the patch is trimmed to a triangular shape to facilitate the closure of the aortotomy with the "Roof" technique. In the 142 consecutives cases, the median size of prosthetic valve used was 29 and upsizing was 3-4 valve sizes. Outcomes included one death, one stroke, two pacemaker implantations for complete heart block including one case of aortic valve endocarditis with Gerbode fistula, and no reoperation for post-operative bleeding. The median aortic valve mean gradient was 7 mmHg and aortic valve area was 2.4 cm2 two years after SAVR. The median left ventricular mass index regression was 41% in 12-24 months in patients with moderate/severe aortic stenosis.

Changes in aortic root dimensions post aortic root enlargement with Y-incision and modified aortotomy.

Background: Lifetime management in aortic stenosis (AS) can be facilitated by aortic root enlargement (ARE) to improve anatomy for future valve-in-valve (ViV) procedures. A mitral valve-sparing ARE technique ("Y-incision") and sinotubular junction (STJ) enlargement ("roof" patch aortotomy) allow upsizing by 3-4 valve sizes, but quantitative analysis of changes in root anatomy is lacking. Methods: Among 78 patients who underwent ARE by Y-incision technique (± roof aortotomy closure) we identified 45 patients with high-quality pre- and post-operative computed tomography angiography (CTA) scans to allow analysis of change in aortic root dimensions. Detailed measurements of the annulus/basilar ring and sinuses were performed by an expert imager on both pre- and post-operative CTAs. The basal ring was defined as the functional annulus when a bioprosthetic valve was present. Results: Average age was 65±11 years, the majority were female (29, 64%), and 9 (20%) had undergone prior aortic valve replacement (AVR). Valve upsizing was ≥3 sizes in 41 (91%). Post-operative mean basal ring diameter was larger compared to the native annular diameter (26.3 vs. 25.3 mm, P<0.01) and substantially larger than prior prosthetic valve in redo AVR (25.6 vs. 19.3 mm, P<0.001). Diameters of the sinuses at pre-operative computed tomography (CT) increased by +7.7±2.8 [right sinuses of Valsalva (R SVS)], +6.7±3.0 [left sinuses of Valsalva (L SVS)], and +6.6±2.9 mm [non-coronary sinuses of Valsalva (N SVS)]. Mean diameter of the STJ increased to 38.3±3.7 post-operative (+8.1±3.2 mm). Left main (LM) and right coronary artery (RCA) heights decreased by -6.3±3.3 and -3.7±3.4 mm respectively due to the supra-annular position of the valve, however, the post-operative valve-to-coronary (VTC) artery distances were 6.6±2.3 and 4.9±2.0 mm, respectively. Conclusion: The Y-incision root enlargement technique significantly enlarges the sinus and STJ diameters by 6-7 mm while preserving VTC distances despite upsizing by 3-4 valve sizes, resulting in post-operative anatomy that is favorable for future transcatheter aortic valve-in-surgical aortic valve (TAV-in-SAV).

How-I-Do-It: Aortic Annular Enlargement - Are the Nicks and Manouguian Obsolete?

The Y-incision aortic annular enlargement (AAE), first performed in August 2020, offers a safe and more effective alternative for management of a small aortic annulus/root without need for violation of the left ventricular outflow tract, mitral valve geometry, or left/right atria in both first-time aortic valve replacement (AVR) and reoperative AVR. In the first consecutive 119 patients with Y-incision AAE, the median age was 65 (59, 71), 67% female, 28% had previous cardiac surgery, and 2 cases had endocarditis. The preoperative mean gradient was 36 (30, 47), and the native aortic valve area was 0.9 (0.7, 1.0). After aortic annular enlargement, the median prosthesis size was 29 (27, 29) with 63% of patients having a size 29 or the largest sized valve. The median increment of annulus enlargement was 3 (3, 4) valve sizes. Postoperative complications included 1 operative mortality, 1 stroke exacerbation, and 2 pacemaker implantations (including one case of endocarditis with Gerbode fistula). There was no renal failure requiring permanent dialysis, mediastinitis, or reoperation for bleeding. Postoperative computed tomography aortogram showed the aortic root was enlarged from 27 (24, 30) to 40 (37, 42) mm without aortic pseudoaneurysm. The postoperative mean gradient was 6 (5, 9) mm Hg and valve area was 2.2 (1.8, 2.6) cm2 at 24 months. Mitral and tricuspid valve functions were significantly improved. This report describes the Y-incision technique with the most up-to-date modifications and short-term outcomes.

Aortic root enlargement and replacement of the ascending aorta in type 0 aortic valve stenosis.

INTRODUCTION: This case report aims to describe an aortic root enlargement in combination with the replacement of the ascending aorta in a patient presenting with severe aortic valve stenosis. CASE REPORT: A 68-year-old woman with severe aortic stenosis due to a type 0 bicuspid aortic valve and an aortic aneurysm underwent surgery for treatment. The annulus was preoperatively measured with 19 mm. Enlargement was performed by using a tissue patch to create a neo-noncoronary sinus and enlarge the root. DISCUSSION: Patients with a small aortic root face an increased risk of patient prosthesis mismatch. Enlarging the aortic root can mitigate this, but it extends cross-clamp and overall operative times. This case shows the need for carefully planned surgical interventions to optimize outcomes in complex anatomies. CONCLUSIONS: Each step of the performed surgery is well-established, however the combination and the creation of a neo-noncoronary sinus is not described so far.

Use of Sutureless Valve in Aortic Root Enlargement.

AIM: The small aortic annulus is a surgical challenge in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement which may lead to patient prosthesis mismatch. Management options include aortic root enlargement, aortic root replacement, and the use of sutureless valves. In this case series, we report our results with aortic root enlargement, sutureless valve implantation, and benchtop modelling of the radial forces exerted. METHODS: Five patients underwent aortic root enlargement and insertion of the Perceval valve as part of the management strategy to enlarge their effective orifice area. We further investigate this strategy with a benchtop model to quantify the radial forces exerted by the Perceval valve on the aortic annulus. Radial and hoop forces on the aortic annulus and inner ring of the Perceval valve were recorded using a Mylar force tester. RESULTS: Five female patients with native annulus between 18mm-20mm underwent root enlargement and insertion of a Perceval S valve. The postoperative course was uncomplicated for all patients except for one who required a permanent pacemaker insertion. Transvalvular pressure gradients remained low at up to 4 years of follow-up (12 mmHg-21 mmHg), with no evidence of paravalvular leak. Benchtop testing demonstrated radial forces exerted at the annulus in all-size Perceval S valves to be within physiological variables, whereas compressive forces required to deform the valves were supraphysiological. CONCLUSIONS: The deployment of a sutureless valve within a surgical enlarged aortic root is a feasible solution in patients with a small aortic root.

Aortic root enlargement in patients undergoing mitral and aortic replacement: early outcomes in a sub-Saharan population.

Introduction: Aortic root enlargement (ARE) is often required to avoid patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) in young patients undergoing aortic surgery, including those undergoing combined mitral and aortic valve replacement (double valve replacement, DVR). Adding ARE to DVR may increase the operative risk by extending the surgical time. Herein, we review our experience with ARE in patients who underwent DVR. Materials and methods: The medical records of 69 patients who underwent DVR at our institution between February 2008 and November 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. The patients were divided into two groups according to the ARE procedure (ARE-DVR: 25 patients; DVR: 44 patients). Descriptive and comparative analyses of demographic, clinical, and surgical data were performed. Results: Among the 69 patients who underwent DVR, 35 were women (sex ratio, 0.97). The mean age at surgery was 26.7 ± 13.9 years (range: 7-62 years). Among the 47 patients aged ≤30 years, 40.4% (19/47) were aged between 10 and 20 years, and 6.3% (3/47) were aged <10 years. Patients in the ARE-DVR group were younger (23.3 ± 12.9 years vs. 28.5 ± 14.2 years, p < 0.05). The New York Heart Association Class ≥III dyspnea was the most common symptom (89.9%), with no differences between the two groups. Of all the patients, 84.1% had sinus rhythm. Rheumatic disease was the most common etiology in the entire cohort (91.3%). The mean aortic annulus diameter was 20.54 mm, with smaller sizes found in the ARE-DVR group (18.00 ± 1.47 mm vs. 22.50 ± 2.35 mm, p < 0.05). The aortic cross-clamping duration was greater in the ARE-DVR group (177.6 ± 37.9 min vs. 148.3 ± 66.3 min, p = 0.047). The operative mortality rate was 5.6% for the entire cohort (ARE-DVR: 8% vs. DVR: 4.5%, p = 0.46). Among the patients who underwent echocardiographic control at follow-up, the mean aortic gradient was 19.6 ± 7.2 mmHg (range: 6.14-33 mmHg), with no differences among the groups. Conclusion: The association between ARE and DVR did not significantly affect operative mortality. ARE can be safely used whenever indications arise to reduce the occurrence of PPM, especially in young patients with growth potential.

Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch and Aortic Root Enlargement: Indications, Techniques and Outcomes.

Prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) is defined as implanting a prosthetic that is insufficiently sized for the patient receiving it. PPM leads to high residual transvalvular gradients post-aortic valve replacement and consequently results in left ventricular dysfunction, morbidity and mortality in both the short and long term. Younger patients and patients with poor preoperative left ventricular function are more vulnerable to increased mortality secondary to PPM. There is debate over the measurement of valvular effective orifice area (EOA) and variation exists in how manufacturers report the EOA. The most reliable technique is using in vivo echocardiographic measurements to create tables of predicted EOAs for different valve sizes. PPM can be prevented surgically in patients at risk through aortic root enlargement (ARE). Established techniques include the posterior enlargement through Nicks and Manouguian procedures, and aortico-ventriculoplasty with the Konno-Rastan procedure, which allows for a greater enlargement but carries increased surgical risk. A contemporary development is the Yang procedure, which uses a Y-shaped incision created through the non- and left-coronary cusp commissure, undermining the nadirs of the non- and left-coronary cusps. Early results are promising and demonstrate an ability to safely increase the aortic root by up to two to three sizes. Aortic root enlargement thus remains a valuable and safe tool in addressing PPM, and should be considered during surgical planning.

Sutureless valves versus aortic root enlargement for aortic valve replacement in small aortic annulus: A systematic review and pooled analysis.

BACKGROUND: Very few studies provide direct comparisons between aortic root enlargement and sutureless valve implantation in patients with a small aortic annulus who underwent aortic valve replacement. This study aims to provide comparative outcomes between the two in such a subset of patients, through a systematic review and pool analysis. METHODS: The PubMed, Scopus and Embase databases were searched using the appropriate terms. The data from original articles mentioning aortic root enlargement and sutureless valves in a single or comparative study with another group of patients with a small aortic annulus were pooled and analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Both cardiopulmonary bypass (68.4 vs. 125.03 min, p < 0.001) and aortic cross-clamp times were significantly shorter in the sutureless valve group, along with a concomitantly higher number of minimally invasive surgeries. The incidence of permanent pacemaker implantation (9.76% vs. 3.16%, p < 0.00001), patient prosthesis mis-match and paravalvular leak was significantly higher in the sutureless valve group. In comparison, the incidence of re-exploration for bleeding was higher in the aortic root enlargement group (5.27% vs. 3.16%, p < 0.02). The two groups had no differences in the duration of hospital stays or mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Sutureless valves demonstrated a comparable hemodynamic outcome with aortic root enlargement in patients with a small aortic annulus. In addition to this, it greatly facilitated minimally invasive surgery. However, the high incidence of pacemaker implantation is still a concern for the widespread recommendation of sutureless valves, especially in young patients with a small aortic annulus.

Aortic valve replacement in small aortic root- Bi-leaflet mechanical valve is superior to a Mono-leaflet mechanical valve.

Background: Patient prosthetic mismatch is a serious but avoidable complication of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) complicated by a small aortic annulus. This study aims to compare early and midterm outcomes following aortic valve replacement (AVR) with a mono-leaflet (ML) valve and a bi-leaflet (BL) valve in a small aortic root. Methods and selection: From January 1st, 2017 to December 31st, 2019, 98 patients diagnosed with small aortic root underwent isolated aortic valve replacement with either TTK Chitra valve (Mono-leaflet/ ML group) or St. Jude medical valve (Bi-leaflet/ BL group) of size 17/ 19 mm. Echocardiography was analyzed from medical records and telephonic follow-up. Results: Baseline parameters were comparable. The ML group had 42 patients and the BL group had 56 patients. Aortic cross-clamp time, the incidence of severe patient prosthetic mismatch (p = 0.002) and mean, peak pressure gradients were high in the ML group. Duration of ventilation, intensive care unit (ICU) stay, the incidence of stroke, need for intra-aortic balloon pump, permanent pacemaker, dialysis, and left ventricular mass index in echocardiography were comparable between the two groups postoperatively. There was no early mortality in both group. Survival at the end of 5 years was 57 ± 14.4% in the ML group; 91.8 ± 4% in the BL group (p = 0.005). Univariate and multivariate analysis revealed elderly age as a risk factor for mortality. Conclusion: We conclude that aortic valve replacement without any root widening procedure, using a small-sized mechanical valve provides acceptable early outcomes. Bi-leaflet mechanical valves provide better hemodynamics and survival percentage.

Early and late effects of aortic root enlargement: Results from the Pericardial Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement Pivotal Trial: A multicenter, prospective clinical trial.

Objective: During surgical aortic valve replacement, prosthesis-patient mismatch is avoided by implanting the largest possible valve, which sometimes requires annular enlargement (ARE). The effects of ARE on mortality remain controversial. We reviewed data from a multinational clinical trial evaluating a novel pericardial bioprosthesis to determine the influence of ARE 5 years postimplant. Methods: Patients with aortic valve disease requiring surgical aortic valve replacement were prospectively enrolled at 25 centers in North America and 13 centers in Europe. Standardized follow-up was prescribed, including serial echocardiography assessed by a core lab. A composite 30-day end point of major morbidity or mortality was defined as death, reoperation for any cause, stroke, deep sternal wound infection, and acute kidney injury. Results: Among 602 patients with detailed intraoperative data, 90 (15%) underwent ARE with similar rates in North America (17%) and Europe (12%; P = .11). Implanted valve size was similar in both groups (P = .18). The prevalence of moderate or severe prosthesis-patient mismatch at 12 months and at 5 years was comparable between groups, as was the average indexed effective orifice area (P = .3). Five-year survival (ARE, 91% vs no ARE, 89%) and freedom from 30-day major morbidity and mortality (ARE, 87% vs no ARE, 89%) were also similar. Conclusions: In this analysis of a prospective, observational clinical trial, we observed that the performance of an aortic root enlargement procedure did not increase morbidity or mortality at 30 days. We found that survival at 5 years was similar between groups, suggesting that the performance of an ARE procedure restored survival to that observed in patients who did not require an ARE.

Acute hypoxemia due to right-to-left shunt via a patent foramen ovale during left internal thoracic artery to left anterior descending artery anastomosis in off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting: a case report.

BACKGROUND: A right-to-left shunt via a patent foramen ovale (PFO) during off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) may result in difficulties in oxygenation and circulatory management. We herein present a case of a marked shunt via a PFO during OPCAB. CASE PRESENTATION: A 74-year-old man who had aortic root enlargement, compressing the right atrium, and an atrial septal aneurysm, underwent OPCAB. When the heart was fixed for the anastomosis of the left anterior descending artery, sudden hypoxemia and hypotension were observed. Intraoperative transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) showed a right-to-left shunt via a PFO that was unnoticed preoperatively. After the anastomosis was completed, TEE revealed no shunt through the PFO. CONCLUSIONS: We should check for a PFO in case of an atrial septal aneurysm. Compression of the right atrium is considered an important anatomical risk of the right-to-left shunt in OPCAB.

Aortic root abscess and anomalous aortic origin of right coronary artery in a 5-year-old child.

BACKGROUND: Aortic root abscess is a rare complication of infective endocarditis in children. CASE REPORT: A 5-year-old boy with infective endocarditis of aortic valve and an anterior aortic root abscess was found to have anomalous aortic origin of right coronary artery from the left coronary sinus on computed tomography scan with contrast. RESULT: He was managed surgically by "patch and prosthesis" approach and required aortic root enlargement. Since anomalous aortic origin of right coronary artery is a relative contraindication for a Konno-Rastan aortic root enlargement, a Manouguian procedure was performed. CONCLUSION: Anterior aortic root abscesses are rare, the co-existence of anomalous aortic origin of right coronary artery is rarer still and such cases requiring aortic root enlargement are possibly best served by a Manouguian procedure.

Early outcomes of the Y-incision technique to enlarge the aortic annulus 3 to 4 valve sizes.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of a novel aortic annular enlargement technique. METHODS: From August 2020 to February 2022, 50 consecutive cases of aortic valve replacement with Y-incision aortic annular enlargement and other combined cardiac procedures were performed primarily for severe aortic stenosis. Data were obtained through medical record review, The Society of Thoracic Surgeons database, and National Death Index data. RESULTS: The median age was 65 (59, 71) years, 70% of patients were female, and 26% had previous cardiac surgery. Sixty-six percent patients had isolated aortic valve replacement. The preoperative mean gradient was 40 (30, 47) mm Hg, and the native aortic annular size was 21 (19, 23) mm. After aortic annular enlargement, the median prosthesis size was 27 (27, 29) with 54% of patients having a size 29 or the largest sized valve. The median increment of annulus enlargement was 3 (3, 4) valve sizes. 88% of patients received no blood transfusion. There were no major postoperative complications, including operative mortality, renal failure requiring permanent dialysis, mediastinitis, or reoperation for bleeding, except for 1 stroke. Three-month postoperative computed tomography aortogram showed the aortic root was enlarged from 27 (24, 30) to 40 (36, 41) mm without aortic pseudoaneurysm. The postoperative mean gradient was 7 (5, 8) mm Hg and valve area was 1.9 (1.7, 2.3) cm2 at 3 to 12 months. Mitral and tricuspid valve functions were significantly improved. Survival was 100% at 18 months. CONCLUSIONS: Y-incision aortic annular enlargement was safe and effective for upsizing the aortic annulus by 3 to 4 valve sizes.

Aortic root enlargement: Just do it.

Aortic root enlargement (ARE) can be an important adjunct for aortic valve replacement (AVR) in patients with small annuli, but incremental morbidity of this procedure is not well understood.