Current Indications for Surgical Repair in Patients with Bicuspid Aortic Valve and Ascending Aortic Ectasia

Preventive surgical repair of the moderately dilated ascending aorta/aortic root in patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) is controversial. Most international reference centers are currently proposing a proactive approach for BAV patients with a maximum ascending aortic/root diameter of 45 mm since the risk of dissection/rupture raises significantly with an aneurysm diameter >50 mm. Current guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the joint guidelines of the American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) recommend elective repair in symptomatic patients with dysfunctional BAV (aortic diameter ≥45 mm). In asymptomatic patients with a well-functioning BAV, elective repair is recommended for diameters ≥50 mm, or if the aneurysm is rapidly progressing (rate of 5 mm/year), or in case of a strong family history of dissection/rupture/sudden death, or with planned pregnancy. As diameter is likely not the most reliable predictor of rupture and dissection and the majority of BAV patients may never experience an aortic catastrophe at small diameters, an overly aggressive approach almost certainly will put some patients with BAV unnecessarily at risk of operative and early mortality. This paper discusses the indications for preventive, elective repair of the aortic root, and ascending aorta in patients with a BAV and a moderately dilated—or ectatic—ascending aorta

Reoperative aortic root and transverse arch procedures: A comparison with contemporaneous primary operations

ObjectivesLong-term survival and risk factors affecting outcome after reoperative root/ascending aorta and transverse arch procedures have not been clearly described.MethodsTwo hundred patients (138 male patients; age, 60 ± 15 years) underwent reoperative root/ascending aorta (n = 100) or transverse arch (n = 100) procedures at our institution from January 1998 to December 2004 and were compared with 480 consecutive contemporaneous patients with primary procedures (323 male patients; age, 62 ± 16 years; 335 proximal aorta and 145 transverse arch procedures).ResultsReoperative proximal aorta procedures had a higher hospital mortality (7%) than primary root/ascending aorta procedures (3%), but there was a less dramatic difference in operative mortality after primary and reoperative arch procedures (9% vs 10%). Separate multivariable analyses of root/ascending aorta procedures and arch procedures revealed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and age to be significant risk factors for death after either procedure. In addition, an ejection fraction of less than 30% posed a significant risk for proximal aortic surgery, and diabetes and nonelective operations predicted poorer outcome after arch operations. For survivors of root/ascending aorta operations, there was no significant difference in long-term outcome between reoperations and primary procedures, with both restoring longevity to expected levels for an age- and sex-matched normal population. Patients undergoing arch operations, however, continued to have a poorer long-term outlook than their normal peers.ConclusionsIn this series, reoperations in the transverse arch carry the same risk as primary arch procedures, but a higher operative mortality is seen with reoperative than with primary root/ascending aorta procedures. The long-term outlook is better for patients undergoing root/ascending operations than for patients undergoing aortic arch operations, with no difference in the longevity of patients undergoing primary procedures versus reoperations

Multicentre analysis of current strategies and outcomes in open aortic arch surgery: heterogeneity is still an issue

Abstract OBJECTIVES: The study was conducted to evaluate, on the basis of a multicentre analysis, current results of elective open aortic arch surgery performed during the last decade. METHODS: Data of 1232 consecutive patients who underwent aortic arch repair with reimplantation of at least one supra-aortic artery between 2004 and 2013 were collected from 11 European cardiovascular centres, and retrospective statistical examination was performed using uni-and multi-variable analyses to identify predictors for 30-day mortality. Acute aortic dissections and arch surgeries not involving the supra-aortic arteries were not included. RESULTS: Arch repair involving all 3 arch arteries (total), 2 arch arteries (subtotal) or 1 arch artery ( partial) was performed in 956 (77.6%), 155 (12.6%) and 121 (9.8%) patients, respectively. The patients' characteristics as well as the surgical techniques, including the method of cannulation, perfusion and protection, varied considerably between the clinics participating in the study. The in-hospital and 30-day mortality rates were 11.4 and 8.8% for the entire cohort, respectively, ranging between 1.7 and 19.0% in the surgical centres. Multivariable logistic regression analysis identified surgical centre, patient's age, number of previous surgeries with sternotomy and concomitant surgeries as independent risk factors of 30-day mortality. The follow-up of the study group was 96.5% complete with an overall follow-up duration of 3.3 ± 2.9 years, resulting in 4020 patient-years. After hospital discharge, 176 (14.3%) patients died, yielding an overall mortality rate of 25.6%. The actuarial survival after 5 and 8 years was 72.0 ± 1.5% and 64.0 ± 2.0, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The surgical risk in elective aortic arch surgery has remained high during the last decade despite the advance in surgical techniques. However, the patients' characteristics, numbers of surgeries, the techniques and the results varied considerably among the centres. The incompleteness of data gathered retrospectively was not effective enough to determine advantages of particular cannulation, perfusion, protection or surgical techniques; and therefore, we strongly recommend further prospective multicentre studies, preferably registries, in which all relevant data have to be clearly defined and collected

Aortic root surgery in septuagenarians: impact of different surgical techniques

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>To evaluate the impact and safety of different surgical techniques for aortic root replacement (ARR) on early and late morbidity and mortality in septuagenarians undergoing ARR.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Ninety-five patients (73.8 ± 3.2 years) were operated and divided into three groups according to the aortic root procedure; MECH-group (n = 51) patients with a mechanical composite graft, BIO-group (n = 22) patients with a customized biological composite graft, and REIMPL-group (n = 22) patients with a valve sparing aortic root reimplantation (David I). In 42.1% (40/95) of these patients the aortic arch was replaced. Follow-up was completed in 95.2% (79/83) of in-hospital survivors.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Hospital mortality was 12.6% (12/95) in the entire population (MECH. 15.7% (8/51), BIO 19.7% (4/22), REIMPL 0% (0/22); p = 0.004). Two patients died intraoperatively. The most frequent postoperative complications were prolonged mechanical ventilation ((>48 h) in 16.8% (16/93) (MECH. 7% (7/51), BIO 36.4% (8/22), REIMPL 4.5% (1/22); p = 0.013) and rethoracotomy for postoperative bleeding in 12.6% (12/95) (MECH. 12% (6/51), BIO 22.7% (5/22), REIMPL 4.5% (1/22); p = 0.19). Nineteen late deaths (22.9%) (19/83) (MECH 34.8% (15/43), BIO 16.7% (3/18), REIMPL 4.5% (1/22); p = 0.012) occurred during a mean follow-up of 41 ± 42 months (MECH 48 ± 48 months, BIO 25 ± 37 months, REIMPL 40 ± 28 months, p = 0.028). Postoperative NYHA class decreased significantly (p = 0.017) and performance status (p = 0.027) increased for the entire group compared to preoperative values.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Our data indicate that valve sparing aortic root reimplantation is safe and effective in septuagenarians, and is associated with low early and late morbidity and mortality.</p