Starting an aortic valve repair program: is it worthwhile? Aortic valve repair compared to replacement

Abstract

Abstract   OBJECTIVES Increasing evidence suggests that aortic valve (AV) repair may have better long-term outcomes than AV replacement for aortic insufficiency. However, most literature is limited to centres of excellence and has not sufficiently been replicated in nascent programs. This single-centre experience of a newly established AV repair program aims to compare short-term outcomes of AV sparing versus replacement surgery. METHODS A retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent elective surgery for aortic regurgitation or aortic root dilatation at the Leuven University Hospital between 2013 and 2018 was performed. Patients with a critically ill presentation, endocarditis, aortic stenosis or requiring redo surgery were excluded. Patients were assigned to repair versus replacement based on preoperative intention to preserve the AV. Nearest neighbour propensity score matching was performed to compare both groups. Safety (mortality, morbidity), efficiency (cross-clamp and bypass times) and efficacy end points (repair rate, postoperative echocardiography) were compared. RESULTS One hundred and seven patients underwent AV surgery (48 repair, 59 replacement), from which 2 groups of 23 matched patients were created. There were 1 death and 2 reoperations after repair and no death and 1 reoperation after replacement. Extracorporeal circulation and aortic cross-clamp time were significantly longer while ventilation and total hospital stay were significantly shorter after AV repair. Echocardiographic follow-up showed comparable aortic regurgitation but lower transvalvular gradients after repair. Freedom from major complications was comparable in both cohorts. CONCLUSIONS Early results suggest the feasibility of replicating experienced centres’ perioperative and short-term outcomes in nascent programs.