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 versus composite valve graft root replacement: Analysis of more than 1500 patients from 2 aortic centers.
    Author: Levine D, Patel P, Wang C, Pan C, Dong A, Leshnower B, Kurlansky P, Smith CR, Chen E, Takayama H.
    Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 2024 Sep; 168(3):770-780.e6. PubMed ID: 37245627.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVES: The long-term outcomes comparing valve-sparing root replacement, composite valve graft with bioprosthesis, and mechanical prosthesis have yet to be explored. We investigated the long-term survival and reintervention rates after 1 of 3 major aortic root replacements in patients with tricuspid aortic valves and patients with bicuspid aortic valves. METHODS: A total of 1507 patients underwent valve-sparing root replacement (n = 700), composite valve graft with bioprosthesis (n = 703), or composite valve graft with mechanical prosthesis (n = 104) between 2004 and 2021 in 2 aortic centers, excluding those with dissection, endocarditis, stenosis, or prior aortic valve surgery. End points included mortality over time and cumulative incidence of aortic valve/proximal aorta reintervention. Multivariable Cox regression compared adjusted 12-year survival. Fine and Gray competing risk regression compared the risk and cumulative incidence of reintervention. Propensity score-matched subgroup analysis balanced the 2 major groups (composite valve graft with bioprosthesis and valve-sparing root replacement), and landmark analysis isolated outcomes beginning 4 years postoperatively. RESULTS: On multivariable analysis, both composite valve graft with bioprosthesis (hazard ratio, 1.91, P = .001) and composite valve graft with mechanical prosthesis (hazard ratio, 2.62, P = .005) showed increased 12-year mortality risk versus valve-sparing root replacement. After propensity score matching, valve-sparing root replacement displayed improved 12-year survival versus composite valve graft with bioprosthesis (87.9% vs 78.8%, P = .033). Adjusted 12-year reintervention risk in patients receiving composite valve graft with bioprosthesis or composite valve graft with mechanical prosthesis versus valve-sparing root replacement was similar (composite valve graft with bioprosthesis subdistribution hazard ratio, 1.49, P = .170) (composite valve graft with mechanical prosthesis subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.28, P = .110), with a cumulative incidence of 7% in valve-sparing root replacement, 17% in composite valve graft with bioprosthesis, and 2% in composite valve graft with mechanical prosthesis (P = .420). Landmark analysis at 4 years showed an increased incidence of late reintervention in composite valve graft with bioprosthesis versus valve-sparing root replacement (P = .008). CONCLUSIONS: Valve-sparing root replacement, composite valve graft with mechanical prosthesis, and composite valve graft with bioprosthesis demonstrated excellent 12-year survival, with valve-sparing root replacement associated with better survival. All 3 groups have low incidence of reintervention, with valve-sparing root replacement showing decreased late postoperative need for reintervention compared with composite valve graft with bioprosthesis.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]