PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
May 1, 2024Annals of Cardiothoracic Surgery8 citationsOpen Access

Comparison of the short-term outcomes between Y-incision aortic annular enlargement and traditional aortic annular enlargement techniques

View Full Paper
AMAlexander MakkinejadJHJoanna HuaKHKenneth R. Hassler

Key Points

Key points are not available for this paper at this time.

Abstract

Background: The short-term efficacy and safety of the Y-incision technique of aortic annular enlargement (AAE) has been established. We aimed to determine how the short-term outcomes of the Y-incision technique compared to traditional AAE techniques. Methods: From February 2011 to June 2022, 380 patients at the University of Michigan Hospital underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR) with AAE using either traditional annular enlargement techniques (Traditional group, n=270), including Nicks 63% (171/270), Manouguian 34% (91/270), and others 3% (8/270), or the Y-incision technique (Y-incision group, n=110). Propensity score matching was performed by controlling for age, sex, body surface area (BSA), hypertension, diabetes, dialysis, chronic lung disease, stroke, prior cardiac surgery, primary indication, operative status, concomitant procedures, and prosthesis type, to generate a balanced cohort of 103 pairs. Results: There were no differences in demographics, comorbidities, primary indications of the operations, or concomitant procedures between the matched groups. The median native aortic annulus diameter, measured in the operating room, was 21 mm for both groups. Median prosthesis size was 23 in the Traditional group, and 27 in the Y-incision group (P<0.001). There were no differences in perioperative complications/outcomes between the matched groups, including operative mortality, which was 3.9% (8/206) overall. Short-term survival was similar between the groups on Kaplan-Meier analysis; one-year survival was 95% in the Traditional group, and 97% in the Y-incision group (P=0.54). The Y-incision group had significantly lower mean aortic valve gradients (7 vs. 10 mmHg, P<0.001), larger aortic valve areas (2.2 vs. 1.8 cm2, P=0.007), and less moderate/severe patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) (5.5% vs. 23%, P=0.039) on one-year follow-up echocardiography. Conclusions: The Y-incision technique was as safe and more effective in enlarging the aortic annulus and upsizing the prosthetic valve than the traditional techniques of AAE in AVR for small aortic annuli.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Makkinejad et al. (2024) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/68e6c03bb6db64358763fbe1https://doi.org/10.21037/acs-2023-aae-0102
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch Affects Survival After Aortic Valve Replacement2000 · 160 citations
  2. 2Patient prosthesis mismatch affects short- and long-term outcomes after aortic valve replacement☆2006 · 187 citations
  3. 3Patient-prosthesis mismatch following aortic valve replacement2019 · 87 citations
  4. 4Prosthesis-patient mismatch: definition, clinical impact, and prevention2005 · 607 citations
  5. 5Aortic Root Enlargement—Is It a Safe and Effective Approach to Prevent Patient-Prosthesis Mismatch and Is It for Everyone?2019 · 8 citations