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 replacement and composite valve graft replacement in patients with aortic regurgitation: From the Japan Cardiovascular Surgery Database.
    Author: Kunihara T, Ichihara N, Miyata H, Motomura N, Sasaki K, Matsuhama M, Takamoto S, Japan Cardiovascular Surgery Database.
    Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 2019 Dec; 158(6):1501-1511.e6. PubMed ID: 30952541.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVES: The advantage of valve-sparing root replacement (VSRR) over aortic root replacement with a composite valve graft (CVG) remains unclear. We compared these 2 procedures with regard to early outcomes with propensity score matching using the Japan Cardiovascular Surgery Database. METHODS: Of 5303 patients from the Japan Cardiovascular Surgery Database who had undergone aortic root replacement in 2008 to 2017, emergent/urgent or redo cases and those with infective endocarditis or aortic stenosis were excluded (included n = 3841). Two propensity score-matched groups treated with VSRR or CVG replacement (n = 1164 each) were established. RESULTS: Overall, VSRR was more frequently performed for younger patients with Marfan syndrome with lower operative risk and aortic regurgitation grade compared with CVG replacement. After matching, a weaker but similar trend still existed in baseline characteristics. Although more concomitant procedures were performed in the CVG group, myocardial ischemia and cardiopulmonary bypass time was significantly longer in the VSRR group (median, 193 and 245 minutes) than the CVG group (172 and 223 minutes, both P < .01). The CVG group was associated with a significantly greater incidence of postoperative stroke (2.5% vs 1.1%, P = .01) and prolonged ventilation >72 hours (7.0% vs 4.6%, P = .02). In-hospital mortality rates were significantly greater in the CVG group (1.8%) than the VSRR group (0.8%, P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: In overall Japanese institutions, VSRR was more frequently performed for patients at low risk and was associated with better morbidity and mortality rates than CVG replacement. After matching, VSRR was also associated with better morbidity and mortality rates despite longer procedure time.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]