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
Comparative Study
. 2016 Oct 25;68(17):1838-1847.
doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2016.07.767.

Valve-Sparing Root Replacement Compared With Composite Valve Graft Procedures in Patients With Aortic Root Dilation

Affiliations
Free article
Comparative Study

Valve-Sparing Root Replacement Compared With Composite Valve Graft Procedures in Patients With Aortic Root Dilation

Maral Ouzounian et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. .
Free article

Abstract

Background: Although aortic valve-sparing (AVS) operations are established alternatives to composite valve graft (CVG) procedures for patients with aortic root aneurysms, comparative long-term outcomes are lacking.

Objectives: This study sought to compare the results of patients undergoing AVS procedures with those undergoing CVG operations.

Methods: From 1990 to 2010, a total of 616 patients age <70 years and without aortic stenosis underwent elective aortic root surgery (AVS, n = 253; CVG with a bioprosthesis [bio-CVG], n = 180; CVG with a mechanical prosthesis [m-CVG], n = 183). A propensity score was used as a covariate to adjust for unbalanced variables in group comparisons. Mean age was 46 ± 14 years, 83.3% were male, and mean follow-up was 9.8 ± 5.3 years.

Results: Patients undergoing AVS had higher rates of Marfan syndrome and lower rates of bicuspid aortic valve than those undergoing bio-CVG or m-CVG procedures. In-hospital mortality (0.3%) and stroke rate (1.3%) were similar among groups. After adjusting for clinical covariates, both bio-CVG and m-CVG procedures were associated with increased long-term major adverse valve-related events compared with patients undergoing AVS (hazard ratio [HR]: 3.4, p = 0.005; and HR: 5.2, p < 0.001, respectively). They were also associated with increased cardiac mortality (HR: 7.0, p = 0.001; and HR: 6.4, p = 0.003). Furthermore, bio-CVG procedures were associated with increased risk of reoperations (HR: 6.9; p = 0.003), and m-CVG procedures were associated with increased risk of anticoagulant-related hemorrhage (HR: 5.6; p = 0.008) compared with AVS procedures.

Conclusions: This comparative study showed that AVS procedures were associated with reduced cardiac mortality and valve-related complications when compared with bio-CVG and m-CVG. AVS is the treatment of choice for young patients with aortic root aneurysm and normal or near-normal aortic cusps.

Keywords: aortic root aneurysms; outcomes; surgery.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources