Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2014 Nov;46(5):887-93.
doi: 10.1093/ejcts/ezu083. Epub 2014 Mar 17.

Mortality characteristics of aortic root surgery in North America

Affiliations

Mortality characteristics of aortic root surgery in North America

Manuel Caceres et al. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2014 Nov.

Abstract

Objectives: Aortic root surgery is transitioning to aortic valve sparing (AVS), but little is known about the relative early outcomes of AVS versus composite graft-valve replacement (CVR). This study assessed mortality differences for AVS versus CVR to guide future practice decisions.

Methods: From January 2000 to June 2011, 31 747 patients had aortic root replacement with AVS (n = 3585; 11%) or CVR (n = 28 162; 89%). The cohort of Overall patients was divided into two subgroups: high-risk patients (n = 20 356; 6% AVS) having age >75 years, endocarditis, aortic stenosis, dialysis, multiple valves, reoperation or emergency/salvage status, and the remaining low-risk patients (n = 11 388; 21% AVS). Using logistic regression analysis, outcomes were presented as unadjusted operative mortality (UOM), risk-adjusted operative mortality (AOM) and adjusted odds ratio (AOR) for mortality.

Results: Baseline characteristics for the Overall group (AVS versus CVR) were: mean age (52 vs 57 years), endocarditis (1 vs 11%), aortic stenosis (4 vs 36%), dialysis (1 vs 2%), multiple valves (7 vs 10%), reoperation (6 vs 17%) and emergency status (14 vs 12%) (all P < 0.0001). In high- and low-risk groups, baseline differences narrowed, and lower mortality was generally observed with AVS: (AVS versus CVR) UOM group Overall (4.5 vs 8.9%)*, group High-risk (10.5 vs 11.7%), group Low-risk (1.4 vs 3.1%)*; AOM group Overall (6.2 vs 8.6%), group High-risk (10.1 vs 11.7%), group Low-risk (2.2 vs 2.8%); AOR group Overall (0.59)*, group High-risk (0.62)*, group Low-risk (0.69). *P < 0.05.

Conclusions: Relative risk-adjusted mortality seemed comparable with AVS versus CVR in low- and high-risk subgroups. These data support judicious expansion of aortic valve repair in patients having aortic root replacement.

Keywords: Aortic root surgery; Aortic valve repair; Heart valve surgery.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Bentall HH, De Bono A. A technique for complete replacement of the ascending aorta. Thorax. 1968;23:338–9. doi:10.1136/thx.23.4.338. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kouchoukas NT, Wareing TH, Murphy SF, Perillo JB. Sixteen-year experience with aortic root replacement: results of 172 operations. Ann Surg. 1991;214:308–20. doi:10.1097/00000658-199109000-00013. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Caceres M, Ma Y, Rankin JS, Sara-Chaundhuri P, Gammie JS, Suri RM, et al. Evolving practice trends of aortic root surgery in North America. Ann Thorac Surg, in-press - PubMed
    1. Hammermeister K, Sethi GK, Henderson WG, Grover FL, Oprian C, Rahimtoola SH. Outcomes 15 years after valve replacement with a mechanical versus a bioprosthetic valve: final report of the Veterans Affairs randomized trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;36:1152–8. doi:10.1016/S0735-1097(00)00834-2. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Brennan JM, Edwards FH, Zhao Y, O'Brien S, Booth ME, Dokholyan RS, et al. Long-term safety and effectiveness of mechanical versus biologic aortic valve prostheses in older patients: results from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons adult cardiac surgery national database. Circulation. 2013;127:1647–55. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.113.002003. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types