Key result
Conventional and valve-sparing aortic root replacement show low in-hospital mortality and ~89% 10-year survival.
Why the study?
Early and long-term outcomes of conventional aortic root replacement and valve-sparing root replacement using a standard perioperative approach were not well defined.
Does conventional and valve-sparing aortic root replacement improve operative mortality and long-term survival in patients undergoing elective and urgent aortic root surgery?
Cohort (n=609)
Does conventional and valve-sparing aortic root replacement improve operative mortality and long-term survival in patients undergoing elective and urgent aortic root surgery?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Conventional and valve-sparing aortic root replacement can be performed with low operative mortality and excellent long-term survival, supporting surgical intervention for aortic aneurysms.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the early and long-term outcomes of conventional aortic root (ARR) and valve-sparing root replacement (VSRR) using a standard perioperative and operative approach. METHODS: We present prospectively collected data of 609 consecutive patients undergoing elective and urgent aortic root surgery (470 ARR, 139 VSRR) between 2006 and 2020. Primary outcomes were operative mortality and incidence of postoperative complications. Secondary outcomes were long-term survival and requirement for reintervention. Median follow-up was 7.6 years (range 0.5-14.5). RESULTS: 189 patients (31%) had bicuspid aortic valves and 17 (6.9%) underwent redo procedures. Median cross-clamp time was 88 (range 54-208) min with cardiopulmonary bypass of 108 (range 75-296) min. In-hospital mortality was 10 (1.6%), with transient ischaemic attacks/strokes occurring in 1.1%. In-hospital mortality for VSRR was 0.7%. 12 patients (2.0%) required a resternotomy for bleeding and 14 (2.3%) received haemofiltration. Intensive care unit and hospital stay were 1.7 and 7.0 days, respectively. During follow-up, redo surgery for native aortic valve replacement was required in 1.4% of the VSRR group. Overall survival was 95.1% at 3 years, 93.1% at 5 years, 91.2% at 7 years and 88.6% at 10 years. CONCLUSIONS: ARR and VSRR can be performed with low mortality and morbidity as well as a low rate of reintervention during the period of long-term follow-up, if performed by an experienced team with a consistent perioperative approach. This series provides contemporary evidence to balance the risks of aortic aneurysms and their rupture at diameters of <5.5 cm against the risks and benefits of surgery.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jahangiri et al. (2022) conducted a cohort in Aortic root disease (n=609). Conventional aortic root replacement (ARR) and valve-sparing root replacement (VSRR) was evaluated on Operative mortality and incidence of postoperative complications. Conventional and valve-sparing aortic root replacement demonstrated low in-hospital mortality (1.6%) and high overall long-term survival (88.6% at 10 years).
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: