Evolving Practice Trends of Aortic Root Surgery in North America

Abstract

Background: Aortic-valve sparing (AVS) techniques have emerged as alternatives to composite graft-valve replacement (CVR) for treatment of aortic root aneurysm. This study analyzed recent practice trends of aortic root surgery using the Society of Thoracic Surgeons database.

Methods: From January 2000 through June 2011, 31,747, Overall patients received AVS (n=3,585/31,747; 11.3%) or CVR (n=28,162/31,747; 88.7%). A High-Risk Subgroup was defined as: age >75 years, endocarditis, aortic stenosis, dialysis, multi-valve surgery, valve reoperation, or emergency/salvage status, and high-risk patients were less likely to receive AVS (n=20,356/31,747 [64.1%]; 6% AVS; unadjusted operative mortality 10.5% AVS and 11.7% CVR). The remaining patients comprised a Low-Risk Subgroup, in which AVS was more common (n=11,388/31,747 [35.9%]; 21% AVS; unadjusted operative mortality 1.4% AVS and 3.1% CVR). Procedural changes over 3 equal time periods (P1-P2-P3) were evaluated by Cochran-Armitage trends analysis.

Results: Compared to AVS, Overall CVR patients had worse baseline risk profiles and higher unadjusted operative mortality. In High-Risk patients, AVS mortality was comparable to CVR (10.5% vs 11.7%, p=0.19), but AVS mortality was lower in the Low-Risk group (1.4% vs 3%, p<0.0001). For P1/P2/P3, AVS percentages and trend p-values were: High-Risk (6%/6%/7%, p=0.26) and Low-Risk (12%/21%/25%, p<0.0001). CVR prosthesis type (mechanical/bioprosthesis/homograft) also changed: P1 (63%/22%/15%), P2 (58%/38%/4%), and P3 (53%/44%/3%) (all p<0.0001, except mechanical valves in High-Risk patients p=0.18).

Conclusions: Patients receiving CVR tended to have higher risk profiles. AVS increased over time in Low-Risk patients while bioprostheses increased in CVR. Favorable outcomes support the trend toward further expansion of AVS.

Keywords: Aortic Root; Aortic Valve Repair; Heart Valve..