Key result
Valve sparing reimplantation offered greater reduction of the ventriculo-aortic junction compared with subcommissural annuloplasty (21 vs 24 mm, P<0.01), positively influencing repair durability.
Why the study?
Does valve sparing reimplantation improve annular reduction and repair durability compared to subcommissural annuloplasty in patients undergoing bicuspid aortic valve repair?
Cohort (n=118)
Does valve sparing reimplantation improve annular reduction and repair durability compared to subcommissural annuloplasty in patients undergoing bicuspid aortic valve repair?
Absolute Event Rate: 21% vs 24%
p-value: p=<0.01
Valve sparing reimplantation offers greater reduction of the ventriculo-aortic junction compared to subcommissural annuloplasty, which positively influences repair durability, particularly in patients with a large VAJ.
May favor reimplantation in bicuspid repair; leaves open randomized confirmation of durability impact.
OBJECTIVES: We have recently shown that valve sparing reimplantation (VSR) improves the durability of bicuspid aortic valve repair in comparison with subcommissural annuloplasty. The aim of this study was to assess the degree of annular reduction provided by these techniques and to correlate these findings with repair durability. METHODS: From 1995 to 2010, 161 patients underwent bicuspid valve repair. We included only patients with subcommissural annuloplasty or reimplantation having intraoperative pre- and post-repair transoesophageal echocardiography images. Pre- and post-repair ventriculo-aortic junction (VAJ) diameters were measured on long axis views. Inclusion criteria were met by 53 patients with subcommissual annuloplasty and 65 with reimplantation. Median follow-up was 53 months in the subcommissual annuloplasty group and 42 months in the reimplantation group. Follow-up completeness was 100% in subcommissural annuloplasty and 94% in reimplantation. RESULTS: There was no operative or late mortality. Mean preoperative VAJ was similar in both groups (reimplantation: 28 ± 3 mm vs subcommissural annuloplasty: 28 ± 3, P = 0.16). Preoperative VAJ was larger in patients <40 years and with aortic regurgitation (AR) ≥ 3+ (P < 0.01). Mean postoperative VAJ was smaller in reimplantation compared with subcommissural annuloplasty (21 ± 2 mm vs 24 ± 3 mm, P < 0.01). In univariate analyses, subcommissural annuloplasty, preoperative VAJ ≥ 30 mm, postoperative VAJ ≥ 25 mm and cusp repair with patch were predictive of recurrent AR > 1+. In the subcommissural annuloplasty group, VAJ≥ 30 mm preoperatively and ≥ 25 mm postoperatively were associated with decreased 6 years freedom from recurrent AR>1+ (<30 mm: 74% vs ≥ 30 mm: 39%, P = 0.01; <25 mm: 80% vs ≥ 25 mm 31%, P = 0.02) In the reimplantation group, VAJ dimension had no effect on recurrent AR >1+ (P = 0.93). CONCLUSIONS: In bicuspid aortic valve repair, the circumferential annuloplasty of VSR offers greater reduction of VAJ compared with the non-circumferential annuloplasty provided by the subcommissural annuloplasty. The degree and extent of VAJ reduction in reimplantation seem to be factors among others that positively influence repair durability particularly in patients with a large VAJ (≥ 30 mm).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Navarra et al. (2013) conducted a cohort in Bicuspid aortic valve disease (n=118). Valve sparing reimplantation vs. Subcommissural annuloplasty was evaluated on Mean postoperative ventriculo-aortic junction (VAJ) diameter (mm) (p=<0.01). Valve sparing reimplantation offered greater reduction of the ventriculo-aortic junction compared with subcommissural annuloplasty (21 vs 24 mm, P<0.01), positively influencing repair durability.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: