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
. 2022 Oct 14:9:966126.
doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2022.966126. eCollection 2022.

Valve-sparing David procedure via minimally invasive access does not compromise outcome

Malakh Shrestha  1 , Tim Kaufeld  1 , Pamila Shrestha  1 , Andreas Martens  1 , Saad Rustum  1 , Linda Rudolph  1 , Heike Krüger  1 , Morsi Arar  1 , Axel Haverich  1 , Erik Beckmann  1
Affiliations

Valve-sparing David procedure via minimally invasive access does not compromise outcome

Malakh Shrestha et al. Front Cardiovasc Med. .

Abstract

Objectives: Aortic valve sparing-aortic root replacement (David procedure) has not been routinely performed via minimally invasive access due to its complexity. We compared our results of elective David procedure via minimally invasive access to those via a full sternotomy.

Methods: Between 1993 and 2019, a total of 732 patients underwent a valve sparing root replacement (David) procedure. Out of these, 220 patients underwent elective David-I procedure (isolated) without any other concomitant procedures at our center. Patients were assigned to either group A (n = 42, mini-access) or group B (n = 178, full sternotomy).

Results: Cardiopulmonary bypass time were 188.5 ± 35.4 min in group A and 149.0 (135.5-167.5) in group B (p < 0.001). Aortic cross-clamp time were 126.2 ± 27.2 min in group A and 110.0 (97.0-126.0) in group B (p < 0.001). Post-operative echocardiography showed aortic insufficiency ≤ I° in 41 (100%) patients of group A and 155 (95%) of group B. In-hospital mortality was 2.4% (n = 1) in group A and 0% (n = 0) in group B (p = 0.191). Perioperative stroke occurred in 1 (2.4%) patient of group A and 2 (1.1%) patients of group B (p = 0.483). Reexploration for bleeding was necessary in 4 (9.5%) patients of group A and 7 (3.9%) of group B (p = 0.232). Follow-up was complete for 98% of all patients. The 1-, 2-, 4-, and 6-year survival rates were: 97, 97, 97, and 97%, in group A (mini-access) and 99, 96, 95, and 92% in group B (full sternotomy), respectively. The rates for freedom from valve-related re-operation at 1, 2, 4, and 6 years after initial surgery were: 97, 95, 95, and 84% in group A and 97, 95, 91, and 90% in group B, respectively.

Conclusion: Early post-operative results after David procedure via minimally invasive access are comparable to conventional full sternotomy. Meticulous attention to hemostasis is a critical factor during minimally access David procedures. Long-term outcome including the durability of the reimplanted aortic valve seems to be comparable, too.

Keywords: David procedure; aortic valve-sparing root replacement; mini access; minimally invasive surgery; reimplantation procedure.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Survival after isolated elective AVSRR. This figure shows the Kaplan Meier survival curves for patients who underwent isolated, elective David-I procedure. The red curve shows the mini access patients (group A) and the blue curve shows the full sternotomy patients (group B). Time origin on x-axis denotes day of surgery.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Freedom from aortic valve-related reoperation after isolated elective AVSRR. This figure shows the Kaplan Meier curves for freedom from aortic valve-related reoperation after isolated, elective David-I procedure. The red curve shows the mini access patients (group A) and the blue curve shows the full sternotomy patients (group B). Time origin on x-axis denotes day of surgery.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Bakir I, Casselman FP, Wellens F, Jeanmart H, De Geest R, Degrieck I, et al. . Minimally invasive versus standard approach aortic valve replacement: a study in 506 patients. Ann Thorac Surg. (2006) 81:1599–604. 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2005.12.011 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Cheng DCH, Martin J, Lal A, Diegeler A, Folliguet TA, Nifong LW, et al. . Minimally invasive versus conventional open mitral valve surgery: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Innovations. (2011) 6:84–103. 10.1097/imi.0b013e3182167feb - DOI - PubMed
    1. David TE, Feindel CM. An aortic valve-sparing operation for patients with aortic incompetence and aneurysm of the ascending aorta. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. (1992) 103:617–21; discussion 622. 10.1016/S0022-5223(19)34942-6 - DOI - PubMed
    1. David TE, David CM, Ouzounian M, Feindel CM, Lafreniere-Roula M, A. progress report on reimplantation of the aortic valve. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. (2021) 161:890–9. 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2020.07.121 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Beckmann E, Martens A, Krüger H, Korte W, Kaufeld T, Stettinger A, et al. . Aortic valve-sparing root replacement with Tirone E. David's reimplantation technique: single-centre 25-year experience. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. (2021) 60:642–8. 10.1093/ejcts/ezab136 - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources