Integrated Aortic-Valve-And-Ascending-Aortic Replacement vs. Partial Replacement in Bicuspid Aortic Valve-Related Aortopathy

Objective: We sought to evaluate the outcomes of integrated aortic-valve and ascending-aortic replacement (IR) vs. partial replacement (PR) in patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV)-related aortopathy.Methods: We compared long-term mortality, reoperation incidence, and the cumulative incidence of stroke, bleeding, significant native valve or prosthetic valve dysfunction, and the New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional classes II-IV between inverse probability-weighted cohorts of patients who underwent IR or PR for BAV-related aortopathy in a single center from 2002 to 2019. Patients were stratified into different aortic diameter groups (valve type vs. aorta type).Results: Among patients with valve type, aortic valve replacement in patients with an aortic diameter > 40 mm was associated with significantly higher 10-year mortality than IR compared with diameter 35-40 mm [17.49 vs. 5.28% at 10 years; hazard ratio (HR), 3.22; 95% CI, 1.52 to 6.85; p = 0.002]. Among patients with aorta type, ascending aortic replacement in patients with an aortic diameter 52-60 mm was associated with significantly higher 10-year mortality than IR compared with diameter 45-52 mm (14.49 vs. 1.85% at 10 years; HR, 0.04; 95% CI, 1.06 to 85.24; p = 0.03).Conclusion: The long-term mortality and reoperation benefit that were associated with IR, as compared with PR, minimizing to 40 mm of the aortic diameter among patients with valve type and minimizing to 52 mm of the aortic diameter among patients with aorta type.

Automated summary

Long-term mortality and reoperation benefits associated with integrated aortic-valve and ascending-aortic replacement (IR) compared to partial replacement (PR) were found to be significant for patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV)-related aortopathy, with differences seen for different aortic diameter groups based on valve or aorta type.