PDF herunterladen
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Aorta (Stamford) 2023; 11(03): 097-106
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1768968
Original Research Article

Reoperation or Aortic Regurgitation Progression after Reimplantation of the Aortic Valve (David's Procedure) Using the Valsalva Graft

Kristina Ma
1   Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden
,
Emelie Carlestål
1   Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden
2   Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
,
Anders Franco-Cereceda
1   Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden
2   Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
,
Christian Olsson 
1   Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden
2   Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
› Institutsangaben Funding This study was funded by donations from Mr. Fredrik Lundberg (A.F-C., C.O.) and from the Schörling Foundation (C.O.)
› Weitere Informationen
   Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Background This study aimed to assess predictors of a composite endpoint (reoperation for aortic valve [AV] failure or aortic regurgitation [AR] grade ≥ 2) after reimplantation of the aortic valve (RAV) using the Valsalva graft.

Methods From 2012 to 2021, 112 patients underwent RAV in a single center. Clinical and echocardiographic data were collected retrospectively. Cox regression analysis was used to identify predictors of the composite endpoint. Kaplan–Meier methods were used for time-to-event analysis.

Results Median (interquartile range) age was 52 years (44, 62). Nineteen patients (17%) were operated for acute Type A aortic dissection, and the remainder for aortic root aneurysm, 60 mm or larger in 12/112 (11%). Thirty-day mortality was 1/112 (1%). During follow-up, four patients (3.6%) were reoperated for AV failure, and another nine patients (8.1%) developed AR grade ≥ 2. Overall estimated freedom from reoperation or AR grade ≥ 2 was 87% (95% confidence interval: 76–93%) at 5 years. Significantly lower estimated 5-year freedom from the composite endpoint was found in cases with simultaneous aortic valve repair (AVr; 77 vs. 90%, p = 0.007) and nearly significant for large (≥ 6 cm) aortic root diameter (82 vs. 87%, p = 0.055). In Cox's analysis, aortic root diameter and simultaneous AVr were independent predictors for the composite endpoint.

Conclusion Outcomes (survival, reoperation, freedom from AR grade ≥ 2) with RAV were good up to 11-year follow-up. Larger aortic root diameter and simultaneous AVr were identified as predictors for reoperation or AR grade ≥ 2. Long-term follow-up remains necessary to confirm adequate AV function.

Keywords

reimplantation of the aortic valve - valve-sparing root replacement - aortic valve reimplantation - David procedure

Authors Contributions

Concept/design: E.C., A.F-C., C.O.; data collection: K.M., C.O.; data analysis/interpretation: K.M., E.C., A.F-C., C.O.; Statistics: K.M., C.O.; drafting article: K.M., C.O.; critical revision: K.M., E.C., A.F-C., C.O.; approval: KM, E.C., A.F-C., CO; funding: A.F-C., C.O.


Ethics and Integrity Policies Statements

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.


Institutional Review Board Approval or Waiver

This study was approved by the institutional review board (no. 2021-05562)


Supplementary Material



Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 23. August 2022

Angenommen: 07. April 2023

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
24. August 2023

© 2023. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Mastrobuoni S, de Kerchove L, Navarra E. et al. Long-term experience with valve-sparing reimplantation technique for the treatment of aortic aneurysm and aortic regurgitation. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2019; 158 (01) 14-23
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Hopkins RA. Aortic valve leaflet sparing and salvage surgery: evolution of techniques for aortic root reconstruction. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2003; 24 (06) 886-897
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Feindel CM, David TE. Aortic valve sparing operations: basic concepts. Int J Cardiol 2004; 97 (Suppl. 01) 61-66
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Tsang VT, Cameron DE, Raja SG. How to avoid crimping during valve sparing aortic root replacement using the Valsalva graft. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2011; 40 (01) 266-267
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Huuskonen A, Valo J, Kaarne M. et al. Outcome of valve sparing root replacement for diverse indications. Scand Cardiovasc J 2021; 55 (03) 173-179
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Cevasco M, McGurk S, Yammine M. et al. Early and midterm outcomes of valve-sparing aortic root replacement-reimplantation technique. Aorta (Stamford) 2018; 6 (05) 113-117
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 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 (03) 890-899.e1
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Karciauskas D, Mizariene V, Jakuska P. et al. Long-term outcomes and predictors of recurrent aortic regurgitation after aortic valve-sparing and reconstructive cusp surgery: a single centre experience. J Cardiothorac Surg 2019; 14 (01) 194
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Esaki J, Leshnower BG, Binongo JN. et al. Risk factors for late aortic valve dysfunction after the David V valve-sparing root replacement. Ann Thorac Surg 2017; 104 (05) 1479-1487
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Settepani F, Cappai A, Basciu A. et al. Impact of cusp repair on reoperation risk after the David procedure. Ann Thorac Surg 2016; 102 (05) 1503-1511
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Akins CW, Miller DC, Turina MI. et al; STS, AATS, EACTS. Guidelines for reporting mortality and morbidity after cardiac valve interventions. Ann Thorac Surg 2008; 85 (04) 1490-1495
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 de Kerchove L, Mosala Nezhad Z, Boodhwani M, El Khoury G. How to perform valve sparing reimplantation in a tricuspid aortic valve. Ann Cardiothorac Surg 2013; 2 (01) 105-112
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Klotz S, Stock S, Sievers HH. et al. Survival and reoperation pattern after 20 years of experience with aortic valve-sparing root replacement in patients with tricuspid and bicuspid valves. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2018; 155 (04) 1403-1411.e1
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Siki MA, Habertheuer A, Bavaria JE. et al. Two different geometric orientations for aortic neoroot creation in bicuspid aortic valve repair with root reimplantation. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2020; 160 (01) 47-57
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Kari FA, Kvitting JPE, Stephens EH. et al. Tirone David procedure for bicuspid aortic valve disease: impact of root geometry and valve type on mid-term outcomes. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2014; 19 (03) 375-381 , discussion 381
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Matalanis G, Shi WY, Hayward PAR. Correction of leaflet prolapse extends the spectrum of patients suitable for valve-sparing aortic root replacement. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2010; 37 (06) 1311-1316
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Kari FA, Doll KN, Hemmer W. et al. Residual and progressive aortic regurgitation after valve-sparing root replacement: a propensity-matched multi-institutional analysis in 764 patients. Ann Thorac Surg 2016; 101 (04) 1500-1506
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 de Kerchove L, Boodhwani M, Glineur D. et al. Valve sparing-root replacement with the reimplantation technique to increase the durability of bicuspid aortic valve repair. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2011; 142 (06) 1430-1438
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Schneider U, Hofmann C, Aicher D, Takahashi H, Miura Y, Schäfers HJ. Suture annuloplasty significantly improves the durability of bicuspid aortic valve repair. Ann Thorac Surg 2017; 103 (02) 504-510
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Liebrich M, Kruszynski MK, Roser D. et al. The David procedure in different valve pathologies: a single-center experience in 236 patients. Ann Thorac Surg 2013; 95 (01) 71-76
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Wu J, Huang Y, Qiu J, Saeed B, Yu C. Is valve-sparing root replacement a safe option in acute type A aortic dissection? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2019; 29 (05) 766-775
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Galea N, Piatti F, Sturla F. et al; Cornell International Consortium for Aortic Surgery (CICAS). Novel insights by 4D flow imaging on aortic flow physiology after valve-sparing root replacement with or without neosinuses. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2018; 26 (06) 957-964
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Nasseri B, Richardt D, Bucsky B. et al. Mid- and long-term follow up comparing straight versus sinus prosthesis for reimplantation of the aortic valve. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2018; 66 (S 01): S1-S110
    PubMedGoogle Scholar