LaRonica McPherson

Expanding the indications for the David V aortic root replacement: Early results

OBJECTIVE To examine the early results of the David V valve-sparing aortic root replacement procedure in expanded, higher risk clinical scenarios with appropriately selected patients. METHODS From 2005 to 2011, 150 David V valve-sparing aortic root replacements were performed within Emory Healthcare. A total of 78 patients (expanded group) had undergone the David V in expanded, difficult clinical settings such as emergent type A dissection (n = 29), grade 3+ or greater aortic insufficiency (AI) (n = 53), or reoperative cardiac surgery (n = 14). These patients were evaluated and compared with a group of 72 patients (traditional group) with less than grade 3+ AI who underwent a David V in a traditional, elective setting. The mean follow-up was 19 months (range, 1-72), and the follow-up data were 88% complete. RESULTS There were 3 operative deaths (2.2%), all occurring in the expanded group. The overall patient survival at 6 years was 95%. Three patients required aortic valve replacement: two for severe AI and one for fungal endocarditis. Both groups had concomitant cusp repairs performed in conjunction with the David V (traditional, n = 10; and expanded, n = 16; P = .27). At follow-up, freedom from moderate AI was 93%, and the freedom from aortic valve replacement was 98%. No significant difference was observed in the freedom from moderate AI between the expanded and traditional groups (91% vs 95%, respectively; P = .16). CONCLUSIONS In selected patients possessing appropriate aortic cusp anatomy, the David V can be safely and effectively performed for the expanded indications of aortic dissection, severe AI, and reoperative cardiac surgery with low operative risk. Valve function has remained excellent in the short term, providing evidence of durability and a low rate of valve-related complications.

Reoperative aortic root replacement: Outcome in a contemporary series

Objectives: Reoperative aortic root replacement is a challenging procedure associated with significant mortality and morbidity. The purpose of this study was to investigate the outcomes of reoperative aortic root replacement when performed in a number of complex clinical settings and to identify risk factors for operative mortality and long‐term survival. Methods: From 2006 to 2015, 280 consecutive patients at an academic center underwent reoperative aortic root replacement after a variety of previous aortic or cardiac operations. Logistic regression and extended Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to determine risk factors for operative mortality and long‐term survival, respectively. Results: The mean age of patients was 52.5 ± 14.1 years. Prior operations included proximal aortic replacement in 113 patients, valve surgery in 162 patients, and coronary artery bypass grafting in 46 patients. Concomitant procedures included arch replacement in 135 patients, coronary artery bypass grafting in 68 patients, and mitral valve repair/replacement in 18 patients. Operative mortality was 14.3%. Five‐year survival was 74.0%. Univariable analysis did not find previous root replacement, prior proximal aortic surgery, and concomitant arch replacement to be risk factors for operative mortality. In the multivariable analysis, chronic lung disease, prior myocardial infarction, and concomitant mitral valve surgery were risk factors for operative mortality. Age, peripheral artery disease, emergency, and concomitant mitral valve surgery were risk factors for mortality in the late phase. Conclusions: Reoperative aortic root replacement represents complex procedures carrying significant morbidity and mortality. Chronic lung disease, prior myocardial infarction, and concomitant mitral valve surgery were risk factors for operative mortality. Age, peripheral artery disease, emergency, and concomitant mitral valve surgery were risk factors for long‐term mortality.

Durability and safety of David V valve-sparing root replacement in acute Type A aortic dissection

Background: Valve‐sparing root replacement (VSRR) is an attractive option in type A aortic dissection (TAAD) repair for a young patient with normal cusp anatomy, but conventional root replacement using a composite valved‐conduit (ROOT) remains the gold standard in this emergent clinical setting. We examine the long‐term safety and durability of the David V VSRR compared with ROOT in TAAD repair. Methods: From March 2004 to April 2017, 136 patients underwent repair of acute TAAD using either ROOT (n = 77; 56.6%) or VSRR (n = 59; 43.4%). Annual echocardiograms were performed for follow‐up in VSRR patients. Univariable regression, Kaplan–Meier, and competing risk analyses were performed. Results: Preoperative characteristics were similar between groups, except that VSRR patients were younger (mean age 43.5 ± 11.4 years VSRR vs 50.4 ± 3.0 years ROOT; P = .001). Both groups had similar rates of preoperative malperfusion or shock (29.3% VSRR vs 37.0% ROOT; P = .35) and ≥3+ aortic insufficiency (63% VSRR vs 76.8% ROOT). Thirty‐day mortality in the VSRR group was 2/59 (3.4%) and 11/77 in the ROOT group (14.3%; P < .001). All‐cause survival at 9 years was 92% (VSRR) and 59% (ROOT; P = .002). The incidence of aortic reintervention was similar between groups (20%‐23% at 5 years; P = .81). At 9 years of follow‐up, 5/52 (9.6%) VSRR patients had ≥2+ aortic insufficiency, and 1 patient required valve reintervention. Conclusions: In highly‐selected patients, the David V VSRR provides a safe repair of acute TAAD with concomitant root pathology and valve insufficiency. In our center, the incidence of valve‐related reintervention at long‐term follow‐up is low after emergent repair.

The evidence in a Bentall procedure with Valsalva graft: is this standard of care?

Background Biologic valved-conduits avoids the need for anticoagulation and can exploit the excellent hemodynamic performance of stentless valves. Incorporation of the sinuses of Valsalva into the neoaortic root can improve the function and longevity of stentless valves. We report our experience in performing the Bentall procedure with a self-prefabricated composite valved-conduit and review the published experience with the Valsalva graft. Methods From Feb 2005 through Sep 2017, 428 patients underwent aortic root replacement utilizing a composite graft constructed from a 27-29-mm Freestyle MS valve (Medtronic) sutured into a 28-30-mm Gelweave Valsalva prosthesis (Sulzer Vascutek, Renfrewshire, Scotland). Data were retrospectively analyzed. Results Mean age was 58±13 years, with a male predominance (337, 79%). Additional surgical procedures included a mitral valve repair/replacement in 10 patients (2%), coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) in 114 patients (27%), and aortic arch (hemi or total) replacement in 252 patients (59%). Average cardiopulmonary bypass, cross-clamp, and circulatory arrest times were 210±57, 180±44, and 29±15 min, respectively. Thirty-day mortality was 7% (31 patients). Mean echocardiography follow-up was 27.2±29.0 months (range, 1-138 months). Pressure gradients (mean, peak) across the aortic valve on latest echocardiography were 5.59, 10.57 mmHg respectively. Freedom from >2+ aortic insufficiency (AI) at 6 and 9 years was 96%, and 87% respectively. Freedom from aortic valve replacement (AVR) at 6 and 9 years was 99%, and 95% respectively. To date, 4 (1%) patients required an additional aortic valve intervention secondary to structural valve degeneration. Conclusions Use of the Valsalva graft combined with the Freestyle valve for Bentall procedures is associated with favorable results. Clinical outcomes are excellent and in longitudinal follow-up, valve-related complications are minimal.

Bicuspid aortic valve repair in the setting of severe aortic insufficiency

Background Bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) is a common cardiac anomaly that affects 0.5-2% of adults. Valve sparing root replacement (VSRR) in bicuspid aortopathy is gaining popularity. We discuss the technical aspects of the procedure as well as the mid- to long-term results of performing VSRR in the setting of a bicuspid valve. Methods A single institutional database identified 280 patients who underwent VSRR from 2005-2016. Outcomes were analyzed in 60 consecutive patients undergoing a VSRR in the setting of a BAV with aortic regurgitation (AR). Patients were followed prospectively and had annual echocardiograms. Results The average age in this series was 42±11 years. Moderate or more AR was present in 50% of patients preoperatively. The incidence of operative death, stroke, and renal failure was 0%. Mean follow-up was 39±30 months. At latest follow-up, 62% of patients had zero AR and 87% of patients had <1+ AR. At 9 years, freedom from >2+ AR was 97% and freedom from aortic valve repair (AVR) was 96%. Conclusions VSRR can be safely and effectively performed in young patients with bicuspid valve anatomy regardless of degree of pre-operative AR. Valve function is durable and the incidence of valve-related complications is low. VSRR is an attractive and potentially superior option to conventional root replacement in appropriately selected patients with bicuspid aortopathy.