Key result
Aortic valve repair with a pericardial patch shows similar 8-year survival vs no patch but more early reoperations.
Why the study?
Outcomes of aortic valve repair using additional pericardial patch material compared to cusp repair without the patch were not well characterized.
Does aortic valve repair using a pericardial patch improve outcomes compared to repair without a patch in patients undergoing external ring annuloplasty for aortic insufficiency or aneurysm?
Cohort (n=618)
Yes
Does aortic valve repair using a pericardial patch improve outcomes compared to repair without a patch in patients undergoing external ring annuloplasty for aortic insufficiency or aneurysm?
Absolute Event Rate: 92% vs 90.2%
p-value: p=0.957
Aortic valve repair using a pericardial patch with external ring annuloplasty yields similar 8-year survival and freedom from reintervention compared to repair without a patch, despite a higher rate of early reoperation.
Patch use does not appear to improve long-term outcomes; leaves open selective application in aortic valve repair.
OBJECTIVES: This study was undertaken to analyse outcomes of aortic valve repair using additional material and compare the results to those of cusp repair without the use of the pericardial patch. METHODS: All consecutive patients aged over 16 who underwent aortic valve repair with external ring annuloplasty for isolated aortic insufficiency, aortic insufficiency and tubular aortic aneurysm or aortic root aneurysm between May 2003 and November 2019 were included in a cohort study. Data were collected and analysed from the AVIATOR registry (AorticValve repair InternATiOnal Registry). Propensity score framework analysis (inverse probability of treatment weighting) was used to compare outcomes of the groups while controlling for confounders. RESULTS: During the 16-year study period, 618 patients underwent aortic valve repair. Eight-year survival rate was 92% in the patch group and 90.2% in the no patch group without significant differences [P = 0.957 inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) weighted]. Early valve-related reoperation was more frequent in the patch group as compared to the no patch group (6% vs 1%, P < 0.001 IPTW weighted), the freedom from aortic valve-related reintervention and from structural valve deterioration at 8 years was not significantly different between the patch and no patch groups (93.7% vs 94%, P = 0.968 IPTW weighted; and 99.3% vs 96.7%, P = 0.964 IPTW weighted). CONCLUSIONS: Although a higher rate of early reintervention was observed, aortic valve repair using the pericardial patch, in a standardized approach using external annuloplasty, with effective coaptation height of at least 9 mm, was not associated with an increase in mid-term aortic valve-related reoperation or structural valve deterioration as compared to valve repair without the pericardial patch.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Danial et al. (2022) conducted a cohort in Aortic insufficiency and aortic root/tubular aneurysm (n=618). Aortic valve repair using pericardial patch vs. Aortic valve repair without pericardial patch was evaluated on 8-year survival rate (p=0.957). Aortic valve repair using a pericardial patch resulted in similar 8-year survival compared to repair without a patch (92% vs 90.2%, P=0.957), though early reoperation was more frequent.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: