Murat Yildiz, Florian Schoenhoff, Victoria Werdecker, Maria Nucera, Selim Mosbahi, Yu Zhao, Nicholas Goel, Mikolaj Berezowski, Kendall Lawrence, Sankrit Kapoor, Maximillian Kreibich, Tim Berger, Joseph Kletzer, Joseph Bavaria, Wilson Szeto, Matthias Siepe, Martin Czerny, Nimesh Desai
{"title":"择期保留瓣根置换术中的升主动脉切除术:评估三个中心充血置换术的益处和必要性。","authors":"Murat Yildiz, Florian Schoenhoff, Victoria Werdecker, Maria Nucera, Selim Mosbahi, Yu Zhao, Nicholas Goel, Mikolaj Berezowski, Kendall Lawrence, Sankrit Kapoor, Maximillian Kreibich, Tim Berger, Joseph Kletzer, Joseph Bavaria, Wilson Szeto, Matthias Siepe, Martin Czerny, Nimesh Desai","doi":"10.1093/ejcts/ezaf006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The aim of this study was to determine the indication and optimal timing for performing a hemiarch procedure in patients undergoing valve-sparing root replacement (VSRR).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a retrospective study on 986 patients undergoing VSRR at three tertiary care centres. Inclusion criteria were all patients undergoing elective VSRR. Exclusion criteria were age <18 years, Stanford type A dissection, dissection in the arch, total aortic arch replacement or previous aortic arch replacement. We performed propensity score matching in a 1:1 ratio. The primary endpoint is a composite outcome that includes mortality, aortic arch reintervention, new aortic dissection during follow-up, and cerebrovascular incidents within the first 30 days.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 401 patients (41%) had a hemiarch replacement, while 585 (59%) did not. Root phenotype was present in 565 (57%). The mean follow-up time was 4.7 years (SD ± 4.6).In the matched population, there was no significant difference in the 10-year freedom from the composite outcome between the non-hemiarch and hemiarch groups (87.3% vs. 85.0%, p > 0.999). Similarly, no difference was found for aortic reinterventions (p = 0.13) or survival (p = 0.5). This was also true for patients with heritable thoracic aortic disease. However, in patients with a bicuspid aortic valve, the intervention rate was significantly higher in the hemiarch group (10.8% vs. 0%, p = 0.016).There was no significant difference in the 30-day incidence of cerebrovascular accidents between the groups (5% vs. 2.7% in the hemiarch group, p = 0.117). Only the distal ascending diameter showed a tendency with better outcome over 45mm for the hemiarch procedure, otherwise we found no reliable cut-off values based on asecending length, diameter-to-height index, or ascending length-to-height index.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our findings conclusively demonstrate that concomitant hemiarch replacement does not increase the perioperative risk in young patients undergoing VSRR. However, concomitant replacement does not seem to protect from aortic reinterventions during medium term follow-up.</p>","PeriodicalId":11938,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Revisiting ascending aortic resection in the elective valve-sparing root replacement: assessing the benefits and necessity of hemiarch replacement at three centres.\",\"authors\":\"Murat Yildiz, Florian Schoenhoff, Victoria Werdecker, Maria Nucera, Selim Mosbahi, Yu Zhao, Nicholas Goel, Mikolaj Berezowski, Kendall Lawrence, Sankrit Kapoor, Maximillian Kreibich, Tim Berger, Joseph Kletzer, Joseph Bavaria, Wilson Szeto, Matthias Siepe, Martin Czerny, Nimesh Desai\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/ejcts/ezaf006\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The aim of this study was to determine the indication and optimal timing for performing a hemiarch procedure in patients undergoing valve-sparing root replacement (VSRR).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a retrospective study on 986 patients undergoing VSRR at three tertiary care centres. Inclusion criteria were all patients undergoing elective VSRR. Exclusion criteria were age <18 years, Stanford type A dissection, dissection in the arch, total aortic arch replacement or previous aortic arch replacement. We performed propensity score matching in a 1:1 ratio. The primary endpoint is a composite outcome that includes mortality, aortic arch reintervention, new aortic dissection during follow-up, and cerebrovascular incidents within the first 30 days.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 401 patients (41%) had a hemiarch replacement, while 585 (59%) did not. Root phenotype was present in 565 (57%). The mean follow-up time was 4.7 years (SD ± 4.6).In the matched population, there was no significant difference in the 10-year freedom from the composite outcome between the non-hemiarch and hemiarch groups (87.3% vs. 85.0%, p > 0.999). Similarly, no difference was found for aortic reinterventions (p = 0.13) or survival (p = 0.5). This was also true for patients with heritable thoracic aortic disease. However, in patients with a bicuspid aortic valve, the intervention rate was significantly higher in the hemiarch group (10.8% vs. 0%, p = 0.016).There was no significant difference in the 30-day incidence of cerebrovascular accidents between the groups (5% vs. 2.7% in the hemiarch group, p = 0.117). Only the distal ascending diameter showed a tendency with better outcome over 45mm for the hemiarch procedure, otherwise we found no reliable cut-off values based on asecending length, diameter-to-height index, or ascending length-to-height index.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our findings conclusively demonstrate that concomitant hemiarch replacement does not increase the perioperative risk in young patients undergoing VSRR. However, concomitant replacement does not seem to protect from aortic reinterventions during medium term follow-up.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11938,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezaf006\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezaf006","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:本研究的目的是确定在接受保留瓣膜根置换术(VSRR)的患者中进行出血手术的适应症和最佳时机。方法:我们对三家三级医疗中心的986例VSRR患者进行了回顾性研究。纳入标准均为选择性VSRR患者。排除标准为年龄。结果:共有401例(41%)患者进行了充血置换,585例(59%)患者没有。565例(57%)存在根表型。平均随访时间4.7年(SD±4.6)。在匹配人群中,非出血组和出血组的10年综合结局自由度无显著差异(87.3% vs. 85.0%, p < 0.05 0.999)。同样,主动脉再介入治疗(p = 0.13)和生存率(p = 0.5)也没有差异。对于遗传性胸主动脉疾病患者也是如此。然而,在双尖瓣主动脉瓣患者中,充血组的干预率明显更高(10.8%比0%,p = 0.016)。两组间30天脑血管意外发生率无显著差异(5% vs.出血组2.7%,p = 0.117)。只有远端上升直径在45mm以上表现出较好的预后趋势,除此之外,我们没有发现基于上升长度、直径-高度指数或上升长度-高度指数的可靠临界值。结论:我们的研究结果明确地表明,在接受VSRR的年轻患者中,伴随的充血置换不会增加围手术期的风险。然而,在中期随访中,伴随置换术似乎不能防止主动脉再次介入。
Revisiting ascending aortic resection in the elective valve-sparing root replacement: assessing the benefits and necessity of hemiarch replacement at three centres.
Objectives: The aim of this study was to determine the indication and optimal timing for performing a hemiarch procedure in patients undergoing valve-sparing root replacement (VSRR).
Methods: We conducted a retrospective study on 986 patients undergoing VSRR at three tertiary care centres. Inclusion criteria were all patients undergoing elective VSRR. Exclusion criteria were age <18 years, Stanford type A dissection, dissection in the arch, total aortic arch replacement or previous aortic arch replacement. We performed propensity score matching in a 1:1 ratio. The primary endpoint is a composite outcome that includes mortality, aortic arch reintervention, new aortic dissection during follow-up, and cerebrovascular incidents within the first 30 days.
Results: A total of 401 patients (41%) had a hemiarch replacement, while 585 (59%) did not. Root phenotype was present in 565 (57%). The mean follow-up time was 4.7 years (SD ± 4.6).In the matched population, there was no significant difference in the 10-year freedom from the composite outcome between the non-hemiarch and hemiarch groups (87.3% vs. 85.0%, p > 0.999). Similarly, no difference was found for aortic reinterventions (p = 0.13) or survival (p = 0.5). This was also true for patients with heritable thoracic aortic disease. However, in patients with a bicuspid aortic valve, the intervention rate was significantly higher in the hemiarch group (10.8% vs. 0%, p = 0.016).There was no significant difference in the 30-day incidence of cerebrovascular accidents between the groups (5% vs. 2.7% in the hemiarch group, p = 0.117). Only the distal ascending diameter showed a tendency with better outcome over 45mm for the hemiarch procedure, otherwise we found no reliable cut-off values based on asecending length, diameter-to-height index, or ascending length-to-height index.
Conclusions: Our findings conclusively demonstrate that concomitant hemiarch replacement does not increase the perioperative risk in young patients undergoing VSRR. However, concomitant replacement does not seem to protect from aortic reinterventions during medium term follow-up.
期刊介绍:
The primary aim of the European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery is to provide a medium for the publication of high-quality original scientific reports documenting progress in cardiac and thoracic surgery. The journal publishes reports of significant clinical and experimental advances related to surgery of the heart, the great vessels and the chest. The European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery is an international journal and accepts submissions from all regions. The journal is supported by a number of leading European societies.