Which technique of cusp repair is durable in reimplantation procedure?†

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to ascertain the durability of cusp repair techniques used in reimplantation procedures. METHODS: Between 2000 and 2015, 249 patients (mean age, 49 ± 17 years) with aortic insufficiency underwent the reimplantation procedure. The pathology was acute aortic dissection in 24 and non-dissection in 225 patients. Preoperative aortic regurgitation (AR) was absent in 9, 1+ in 19, 2+ in 20, 3+ in 71 and 4+ in 120 patients. The mean aortic root and ascending aortic diameters were 47 ± 9 mm and 38 ± 7 mm, respectively. The following techniques of cusp repair were used: none (83), central plication (130), free margin reinforcement (57) and patch repair (19). Annual echocardiography was performed. Freedom from moderate aortic insufficiency and aortic valve reoperation were calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Factors influencing the freedom from moderate or severe AR were calculated by proportional hazard analysis. RESULTS: Mean follow-up period was 56 ± 44 months. Freedom from moderate or severe AR was 82%±3% and 77% ± 4% at 5 and 8 years, respectively, whereas freedom from aortic valve reoperation was 93%±8% and 87% ± 3% at 5 and 8 years, respectively. Recurrent AR and infection were causes of reoperation in 13 and 3 patients, respectively. Preoperative cusp prolapse, technique of free margin reinforcement used and patch repair were significant factors for recurrent AR by proportional hazard analysis. Central plication was not a significant factor for recurrent AR. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative cusp prolapse was a risk factor, whereas central plication was not a risk factor for recurrent AR. Free margin reinforcement had a positive effect, whereas patch repair had a negative effect on aortic valve durability.