Why the study?
Does the remodeling technique compared to the reimplantation technique affect mortality and reoperations in patients with acute type A aortic dissection?
Does the remodeling technique compared to the reimplantation technique affect mortality and reoperations in patients with acute type A aortic dissection?
The remodeling technique for valve-sparing aortic root replacement in acute type A aortic dissection is associated with a high failure rate requiring reoperation, whereas the reimplantation technique leads to favorable midterm outcomes.
Remodeling may increase reoperation risk in acute type A dissection; leaves open optimal technique pending randomized data.
BACKGROUND: Valve-sparing surgery including the replacement of the sinus of valsalvae were initially meant to be promising approaches in the treatment of acute type A aortic dissection. However, the long-term outcome after valve-sparing aortic root replacement in acute type A dissection is currently the subject of intense debate, and the evidence reported in the literature is sparse. Here we report on our experience on valve sparing aortic root replacement inpatients with acute type A dissection. METHODS: From August 1995 to November 2000, 30 patients with acute type A dissection received valve-sparing aortic root replacement. Two different techniques were performed: the "remodeling" technique, first described by Yacoub in 1983 (8 patients) and the "reimplantation" technique, initially described by David and Feindel, in 1992 (22 patients). Endpoints of the study were early and late mortality, as well as aortic valve-related complications and reoperations. RESULTS: The mean follow-up time was 22.6+/-15.4 months. The overall 30 day mortality was 17% (5/29) and the late mortality 4% (1/24). During the observation period, 4 patients had to be reoperated (n=3) for acute aortic valve regurgitation after aortic root remodeling and for acute aortic valve endocarditis (n=1) after aortic root reimplantation. In the 3 patients with acute aortic valve regurgitation, symptoms occurred 44, 24, and 17 months after the initial operation in these patients. Intraoperatively prolapsing aortic leaflets because of commissural detachment was found in all 3 cases. In all other patients the latest echocardiographic follow-up examination revealed freedom from aortic regurgitation higher than grade 1. CONCLUSIONS: The high failure rate of aortic root remodeling inpatients with acute type A aortic dissection is discouraging. Whether this technique should be applied in acute type A aortic dissection is questionable. In contrast, aortic root reimplantation lead to favorable midterm outcome. Thus, we recommend consideration of this technique for surgical treatment of patients with acute type A aortic dissection.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Leyh et al. (2002) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:
More from Circulation