Key result
The valve-sparing David procedure was associated with a significantly higher 1-year survival rate (84.1%) compared to biological (61%) and mechanical (61%) Bentall procedures (p=0.008).
Why the study?
Does the valve-sparing David procedure improve survival compared to the classical Bentall procedure in patients with acute aortic dissection type A and aortic root involvement?
Cohort (n=119)
No
Does the valve-sparing David procedure improve survival compared to the classical Bentall procedure in patients with acute aortic dissection type A and aortic root involvement?
Absolute Event Rate: 84.1% vs 61%
p-value: p=0.008
The valve-sparing David procedure is associated with improved 1-year survival compared to the classical Bentall procedure in patients with acute type A aortic dissection and root involvement.
May support David procedure in select cases; leaves open need for randomized confirmation in acute type A dissection.
INTRODUCTION: The "ideal" treatment of acute aortic dissection type A (AADA) with dissected and dilated root is controversial. We compared the outcome of classical Bentall procedure (biological and mechanical) with valve-sparing David procedure. METHODS: Between January 2002 and July 2011, 119 patients with AADA and aortic root involvement underwent surgery at our center. Thirty-one patients (group 1) received biological conduits, 41 (group 2) received mechanical conduits, and 47 (group 3) underwent David procedures. RESULTS: Cross-clamp, cardiopulmonary bypass, and circulatory arrest times were 151 ± 52, 232 ± 84, and 36 ± 30 minutes (group 1); 148 ± 44, 237 ± 91, and 45 ± 29 minutes (group 2); and 160 ± 46, 231 ± 63, and 35 ± 17 minutes (group 3), respectively. The 30-day mortality rates were 32.3% (group 1), 22% (group 2), and 12.8% (group 3). The 1-year rates for freedom from valve-related reoperation were 100% (group 1), 92.5% (group 2), and 95.2% (group 3) (p = 0.172). The 1-year survival rates were 61% (group 1), 61% (group 2), and 84.1% (group 3) (p = 0.008). CONCLUSION: Even in AADA patients with root involvement, David procedure has acceptable results. David procedure (if possible) or a Bio-Bentall (for pathological valves) seems to be the optimal technique.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alhadi et al. (2015) conducted a cohort in Acute aortic dissection type A with aortic root involvement (n=119). David procedure vs. Classical Bentall procedure (biological or mechanical) was evaluated on 1-year survival rate (p=0.008). The valve-sparing David procedure was associated with a significantly higher 1-year survival rate (84.1%) compared to biological (61%) and mechanical (61%) Bentall procedures (p=0.008).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: