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: Comparison of different surgical techniques in 112 consecutive patients with aortic root operations: when should the valve be spared?
    Author: Blehm A, Schurr P, Sorokin VA, Zianikal I, Kamiya H, Albert A, Lichtenberg A.
    Journal: J Heart Valve Dis; 2014 Jan; 23(1):9-16. PubMed ID: 24779323.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE STUDY: The benefit of valve-sparing aortic root replacement compared to conventional aortic root replacement surgery remains unclear. METHODS: Between February 2009 and November 2010, a total of 112 patients underwent aortic root surgery at the Department of Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery, Heinrich-Heine-University, Dusseldorf, Germany. The valve-sparing technique was used when leaflets were grossly normal. In cases where the valve could not be saved, a prosthetic or biological substitute was used for the aortic root, according to existing guidelines. The patients were allocated to three groups: (i) valve-sparing aortic root replacement group using the David technique (VSR-David; n = 47); (ii) valve-replacing aortic root surgery with a prosthetic conduit using the Bentall-Kuchucus technique (VRR-Prosthetic; n = 31); and (iii) valve-replacing aortic root surgery with a biological stentless valve with the full root technique (VRR-Bio; n = 34). RESULTS: Intraoperative data revealed that, in the VSR-David group, the cardiopulmonary bypass and cross-clamp times were significantly longer (207 +/- 68 min and 140 +/- 38 min respectively; both p = 0.001). The VRR-Prosthetic patients were at highest risk (mean EuroSCORE 15.9%) compared to the VSR-David and VRR-Bio groups (10.8% and 10.4%, respectively). Postoperative analysis showed that patients in the VRR-Bio group had the lowest number of perioperative heart failures (p = 0.004). The perioperative 30-day mortality was significantly higher in the VRR-Prosthetic group (22.6%; p = 0.004). Transaortic flow velocities were significantly lower in the VSR-David group, followed by the VRR-Bio group and VRR-Prosthetic group (1.66 +/- 0.54, 1.98 +/- 0.45, and 2.29 +/- 0.39 m/s, respectively; p = 0.012). The univariate and multivariate analyses of perioperative risk factors showed that only open distal anastomosis was strongly associated with negative results, but not the valve-sparing technique. CONCLUSION: Aortic valve-sparing root replacement must be considered as an excellent alternative for young patients requiring aortic root replacement when a biological valve is clinically indicated. For patients aged >65 years, or with a decreased life expectancy, the full root technique with a stentless valve should be used, given its technical simplicity and excellent postoperative results.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]