Surgical Enlargement of the Aortic Root Does Not Increase the Operative Risk of Aortic Valve Replacement

Author:

Rocha Rodolfo V.1,Manlhiot Cedric1,Feindel Christopher M.1,Yau Terrence M.1,Mueller Brigitte1,David Tirone E.1,Ouzounian Maral1

Affiliation:

1. Division of Cardiac Surgery, Peter Munk Cardiac Centre, Toronto General Hospital, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Abstract

Background: Surgical aortic root enlargement (ARE) during aortic valve replacement (AVR) allows for larger prosthesis implantation and may be an important adjunct to surgical AVR in the transcatheter valve-in-valve era. The incremental operative risk of adding ARE to AVR has not been established. We aimed to evaluate the early outcomes of patients undergoing AVR with or without ARE. Methods: From January 1990 to August 2014, 7039 patients underwent AVR (AVR+ARE, n=1854; AVR, n=5185) at a single institution. Patients with aortic dissection and active endocarditis were excluded. Mean age was 65±14 years and 63% were male. Logistic regression and propensity score matching were used to adjust for unbalanced variables in group comparisons. Results: Patients undergoing AVR+ARE were more likely to be female (46% versus 34%, P <0.001) and had higher rates of previous cardiac surgery (18% versus 12%, P <0.001), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (5% versus 3%, P =0.004), urgent/emergent status (6% versus 4%, P =0.01), and worse New York Heart Association status ( P <0.001). Most patients received bioprosthetic valves (AVR+ARE: 73.4% versus AVR: 73.3%, P =0.98) and also underwent concomitant cardiac procedures (AVR+ARE: 68% versus AVR: 67%, P =0.31). Mean prosthesis size implanted was slightly smaller in patients requiring AVR+ARE versus AVR (23.4±2.1 versus 24.1±2.3, P <0.001). In-hospital mortality was higher after AVR+ARE (4.3% versus 3.0%, P =0.008), although when the cohort was restricted to patients undergoing isolated aortic valve replacement with or without root enlargement, mortality was not statistically different (AVR+ARE: 1.7% versus AVR: 1.1%, P =0.29). After adjustment for baseline characteristics, AVR+ARE was not associated with an increased risk of in-hospital mortality when compared with AVR (odds ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 0.75–1.41; P =0.85). Furthermore, AVR+ARE was not associated with an increased risk of postoperative adverse events. Results were similar if propensity matching was used instead of multivariable adjustments for baseline characteristics. Conclusions: In the largest analysis to date, ARE was not associated with increased risk of mortality or adverse events. Surgical ARE is a safe adjunct to AVR in the modern era.

Publisher

Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)

Subject

Physiology (medical),Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3