Why the study?
Data on the results of valve-preserving aortic root reimplantation in patients with bicuspid aortic valve remain limited compared to tricuspid aortic valve.
Does aortic root reimplantation provide similar long-term outcomes in patients with bicuspid aortic valve compared to tricuspid aortic valve?
Does aortic root reimplantation provide similar long-term outcomes in patients with bicuspid aortic valve compared to tricuspid aortic valve?
Aortic root reimplantation is equally effective and durable for patients with bicuspid and tricuspid aortic valves, yielding excellent long-term survival and freedom from reoperation.
Should not yet change BAV reimplantation practice; leaves open durability versus TAV.
Introduction: The results of aortic root reimplantation techniques in patients with tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) are generally recognized. However, data on the results of valve-preserving operations in patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) remain limited.Objective: In this retrospective study we compare the long-term results of reimplantation technique, depending on the type of aortic valve (AV): BAV versus TAV.Methods: The retrospective study included 224 patients (average age 48.43 ± 13.70 years, 81.2% men) who underwent valve-preserving operations by reimplantation of the aortic root from January 2013 to January 2023. Depending on the anatomical variant of the AV, the entire sample was divided into two groups: 76 patients with BAV (33.9%) and 148 patients with TAV (66.1%). To eliminate the systematic differences between the compared groups, the propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was used in order to compare groups by 12 criteria. As a result, 33 pairs of patients were formed. After the PSM analysis, there were no significant differences between the groups.Results: In total, 221 (98.2%) patients were examined in the long-term period. The average follow-up period for the entire sample was 53.17 ± 26.34 months. After the PSM analysis, there were no significant differences between the groups in the number of patients examined, namely 33 individuals (100%) in each group. The average follow-up period was 55.24 ± 22.66 months. At long-term follow-up, 100% survival was recorded in both groups. Prior to the PSM analysis, the freedom from aortic insufficiency (AI) grade ≥ II in the patients with TAV was 90.2% and 88.2% at 5 and 10 year follow-up periods, and in patients with BAV this indicator was 89.6% and 89.6% (p = 0.786), respectively. After the PSM analysis, the freedom from AI grade ≥ II in the patients with TAV was 84.2% and 84.2% at 5 and 8 year follow-up periods, and in the group with BAV it was 85.1% and 85.1% (p = 1.000), respectively. Prior to the PSM analysis, freedom from aortic valve reoperation at 5 and 10 year follow-up periods in the patients with TAV was 99.3%, and in the patients with BAV it was 98.6% (p = 1.000). After the PSM analysis, this indicator at 5 and 8 year follow-up periods in the patients with TAV and with BAV was 100% and 96.7%, respectively (p = 1.000).Conclusion: The reimplantation technique enables to effectively reconstruct the aortic root regardless of the anatomical variant of the AV, providing excellent survival with a low risk of reoperation. Received 2 October 2024. Revised 4 November 2024. Accepted 8 November 2024. FundingThe research was carried out within the framework of the grant of the Russian Science Foundation No. 23-15-00434. Conflict of interestThe authors declare no conflict of interest. Contribution of the authorsThe authors contributed equally to this article.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kokorin et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: