Abstract
OBJECTIVES
We compared the long-term outcomes between aortic valve reimplantation [David V (DV)] and aortic valve and root replacement with biological valved conduit [Bentall–De Bono (BD)] for the patients with aortic root aneurysm with tricuspid valve.
METHODS
Among 876 patients who underwent aortic root replacement in our institution between 2005 and 2018, 371 patients who underwent DV (n = 199) or BD (n = 172) for aortic root aneurysm with tricuspid valve were retrospectively reviewed. Exclusion criteria included aortic stenosis, infective endocarditis, previous prosthetic aortic valve, bicuspid aortic valve, aortic dissection and mechanical Bentall procedure. Propensity score matching was performed based on the patient characteristics, matching 90 patients in each group. The primary end point was all-cause mortality. Secondary end points were reoperation for any cause and specifically for aortic valve-related cause.
RESULTS
After propensity score matching, DV and BD groups each had 1 in-hospital mortality (1.1%). Survival at 10 years was 95.3% [95% confidence interval (CI) 85.8–98.5] in DV and 98.6% (95% CI 90.8–99.8) in BD (P = 0.345). The cumulative incidences of reoperation at 10 years in DV versus BD were 3.9% (95% CI 0.7–11.8) vs 18.1% (95% CI 6.9–33.4) for any cause (P = 0.046) and 1.9% (95% CI 0.1–8.8) vs 15.9% (95% CI 5.5–31.4) for aortic valve-related causes (P = 0.032). The reasons for valve-related reoperation were aortic insufficiency (3/5 in DV vs 5/10 in BD), aortic stenosis (0/5 vs 2/10) and infective endocarditis (2/5 vs 3/10).
CONCLUSIONS
Both DV and BD procedures for patients with aortic root aneurysm with tricuspid valve resulted in excellent 10-year survival. All-cause and aortic valve-related reoperations were significantly less frequent with valve-sparing root replacement, suggesting an advantage of DV over biological BD.
Apico-aortic valved conduit for the treatment of severe aortic stenosis and porcelain aorta
