Trends and Outcomes of Aortic Root Enlargement During Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement

Andre Y. Son MD, MS , Abigail S. Baldridge DrPH , Andrei Churyla MD , Duc Thinh Pham MD , Christopher K. Mehta MD , Douglas R. Johnston MD , Patrick M. McCarthy MD , S. Christopher Malaisrie MD
{"title":"Trends and Outcomes of Aortic Root Enlargement During Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement","authors":"Andre Y. Son MD, MS ,&nbsp;Abigail S. Baldridge DrPH ,&nbsp;Andrei Churyla MD ,&nbsp;Duc Thinh Pham MD ,&nbsp;Christopher K. Mehta MD ,&nbsp;Douglas R. Johnston MD ,&nbsp;Patrick M. McCarthy MD ,&nbsp;S. Christopher Malaisrie MD","doi":"10.1016/j.atssr.2024.09.007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Aortic root enlargement (ARE) during aortic valve replacement (AVR) mitigates prosthesis-patient mismatch, but its use has been low. Transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve (VIV) as a treatment for failing bioprosthetic valves is limited by small surgical valves, renewing interest in ARE during the index AVR. This study demonstrates trends and outcomes of ARE after commercial approval of VIV in 2015.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>This retrospective cohort study analyzed 2182 patients undergoing nonemergent AVR between August 2007 and December 2022. Endocarditis, aortic dissection, and concomitant root replacement or ventricular assist device placement were excluded. Trends in ARE use, valve size, and types were compared. Outcome measures included 30-day mortality and gradients and were compared between patients with and without ARE.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Overall, 74 patients (3.4%) underwent ARE, 14 (1.0%) before 2015 and 60 (7.6%, <em>P</em> &lt; .0001) after 2015. Use of smaller valves (19-21 mm) decreased from 372 (26.8%) before 2015 to 85 (10.7%, <em>P</em> &lt; .0001) after 2015. ARE group was younger than the AVR-alone group (64 vs 68 years, <em>P</em> = .001) but had similar predicted risk of mortality (median, 1.7%). Both groups had comparable postoperative mean gradients (ARE: 11 vs AVR-alone: 10 mm Hg, <em>P</em> = .42). ARE had higher 30-day mortality (5 [7%] vs 48 [2%], <em>P</em> = .014); however, no difference was found in elective patients (2 of 65 [3%] vs 39 of 1898 [2%], <em>P</em> = .57).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>ARE use has increased since commercial approval of VIV. The addition of ARE to AVR did not affect early safety in elective cases, and postoperative gradients were similar to those in patients not requiring ARE. Further studies are required to determine long-term outcomes after ARE, including VIV candidacy.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":72234,"journal":{"name":"Annals of thoracic surgery short reports","volume":"3 1","pages":"Pages 1-5"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of thoracic surgery short reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772993124003681","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Aortic root enlargement (ARE) during aortic valve replacement (AVR) mitigates prosthesis-patient mismatch, but its use has been low. Transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve (VIV) as a treatment for failing bioprosthetic valves is limited by small surgical valves, renewing interest in ARE during the index AVR. This study demonstrates trends and outcomes of ARE after commercial approval of VIV in 2015.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study analyzed 2182 patients undergoing nonemergent AVR between August 2007 and December 2022. Endocarditis, aortic dissection, and concomitant root replacement or ventricular assist device placement were excluded. Trends in ARE use, valve size, and types were compared. Outcome measures included 30-day mortality and gradients and were compared between patients with and without ARE.

Results

Overall, 74 patients (3.4%) underwent ARE, 14 (1.0%) before 2015 and 60 (7.6%, P < .0001) after 2015. Use of smaller valves (19-21 mm) decreased from 372 (26.8%) before 2015 to 85 (10.7%, P < .0001) after 2015. ARE group was younger than the AVR-alone group (64 vs 68 years, P = .001) but had similar predicted risk of mortality (median, 1.7%). Both groups had comparable postoperative mean gradients (ARE: 11 vs AVR-alone: 10 mm Hg, P = .42). ARE had higher 30-day mortality (5 [7%] vs 48 [2%], P = .014); however, no difference was found in elective patients (2 of 65 [3%] vs 39 of 1898 [2%], P = .57).

Conclusions

ARE use has increased since commercial approval of VIV. The addition of ARE to AVR did not affect early safety in elective cases, and postoperative gradients were similar to those in patients not requiring ARE. Further studies are required to determine long-term outcomes after ARE, including VIV candidacy.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
53 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信