4.6 Article

Long-term results of aortic root repair using the reimplantation technique

Journal

JOURNAL OF THORACIC AND CARDIOVASCULAR SURGERY
Volume 145, Issue 3, Pages S22-S25

Publisher

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2012.11.075

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: Aortic valve sparing is frequently performed to treat patients with aortic root aneurysm, but there is an inadequate amount of information regarding its long-term durability. This study examines the long-term results of reimplantation of the aortic valve in patients with aortic root aneurysms. Methods: From August 1989 to December 2010, 296 consecutive patients had reimplantation of the aortic valve into a tubular Dacron graft. Their mean age was 45 years (range, 11-79 years), and 78% were men. Of the patients, 36% had Marfan syndrome and 11% had bicuspid aortic valve. Patients were followed prospectively with periodic images of the aortic root and remaining aorta. The mean follow-up was 6.9 +/- 4.5 years. There were 21 patients at risk at 15 years. Results: There were 4 operative and 18 late deaths. The survival at 5, 10, and 15 years was 95.1% +/- 3.5%, 93.1% +/- 4.4%, and 76.5% +/- 18%, respectively. Only 3 patients required reoperation on the aortic valve; all 3 patients had the Bentall procedure. Freedom from reoperation at 5, 10, and 15 years was 99.7% +/- 2.0%, 97.8% +/- 5.3%, and 97.8% +/- 5.3%, respectively. During follow-up, moderate aortic insufficiency developed in 9 patients, and severe aortic insufficiency developed in 2 patients. Freedom from moderate or severe aortic insufficiency at 5, 10, and 15 years was 98.3% +/- 3.5%, 92.9% +/- 6.5%, and 89.4% +/- 12%, respectively. Conclusions: The function of the aortic valve implanted inside a tubular Dacron graft remains normal at 15 years in most patients after this type of aortic valve-sparing operation. (J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2013;145:S22-5)

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available