These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Valve-sparing root reconstruction does not compromise survival in acute type A aortic dissection.
    Author: Subramanian S, Leontyev S, Borger MA, Trommer C, Misfeld M, Mohr FW.
    Journal: Ann Thorac Surg; 2012 Oct; 94(4):1230-4. PubMed ID: 22748644.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: The optimal management of the dissected aortic root remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to determine whether aortic valve-sparing root replacement (VSRR) compromises survival in aortic dissection repair and to evaluate the comparative efficacy of 2 types of VSRR procedures. METHODS: The Heart Center database (Leipzig, Germany) was reviewed to identify patients who underwent a VSRR for acute type A aortic dissection (AAAD) repair. Patients were classified into 3 groups: Bentall (biological or mechanical valved conduit), Yacoub VSRR, and David VSRR. Intergroup comparisons were performed using the t test and analysis of variance as appropriate. RESULTS: From March 1995 to April 2010, 208/374 patients (56%) undergoing AAAD repair received an aortic root procedure. Group 1 (n=130) underwent a Bentall operation, group 2 (n=51) underwent a modified Yacoub procedure, and group 3 (n=27) underwent a modified David procedure. Age and logistic European system for cardiac operative risk evaluation (EuroSCORE) as well as cross-clamp, cardiopulmonary bypass, and circulatory arrest times were similar among the groups. Hospital mortality among all 3 groups was similar (group 1, 27%; group 2, 16%; group 3, 15%). At a mean follow-up of 44 months for group 2 and 27 months for group 3, there was no difference in the need for aortic valve replacement for moderate to severe aortic insufficiency (AI) (2/37 survivors in group 2 versus 1/23 survivors in group 3; z score=-0.279; p>0.05). Five-year survival estimates were 66% for group 1, 65% for group 2, and 80% for group 3 (log rank p=0.2). CONCLUSIONS: Both the David and Yacoub techniques have similar midterm durability in AAAD repair. When compared with the Bentall procedure, neither technique compromises short-term or midterm survival after AAAD repair.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]