Bradley J Phillips | PubMed Health

PubMed2003

Biological vs. mechanical aortic root replacement.

OBJECTIVES: Although age and co-existing coronary disease are major determining factors when deciding valve choice (mechanical vs. biological) in simple aortic valve replacement, no studies have documented selection criterion for biological (BIO) vs. mechanical (MECH) aortic root prosthesis. METHODS: Two hundred and twenty-one consecutive patients underwent elective aortic root replacement with either BIO (homograft, n=111, Freestyle, n=25) or MECH composite grafts (n=85). Median age in BIO was 53 years and in MECH 54 years (P=NS). Groups were similar in gender, NYHA class and ejection fraction (BIO, EF=59% vs. MECH, EF=55%), but the need for concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) did differ between groups (MECH=35% vs. BIO=17%, P=0.003). Mean follow-up was 42+/-28 months for mortality and 39+/-28 months for morbidity. RESULTS: Full root replacement was performed in 213 patients (96%) and hemi-root in eight (4%). The most common underlying etiologies were annulo-aortic ectasia (n=82, 37%), calcified-degenerative (n=73, 33%) and bicuspid/congenital aortic valve disease (n=39, 18%). Operative mortality was 1.5% for BIO and 2.4% for MECH (P=0.5). By univariate analysis there was a trend towards greater 5-year survival in BIO (92.4% vs. 88.2%, P=0.068). By multivariate analysis, increasing age (HR=2.4, P=0.003), previous valve replacement (HR=4.7, P=0.024), concomitant CABG (HR=3.7, P=0.032), and perioperative stroke (HR=9.9, P=0.0005) were all independent predictors of late death. The 5-year freedom from valve-related complications was similar in both groups (BIO=93% vs. MECH=86%, P=0.5). CONCLUSIONS: Elective aortic root replacement is an exceedingly safe operation. At mean follow-up of 4 years, there is no meaningful difference in early or mid term valve-related results between BIO and MECH aortic root replacement. Continued evaluation for late valve-related complications in this cohort will be necessary to determine the advantages, if any, of one prosthesis over the other.

Adult↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Management of mild aortic stenosis during coronary artery bypass surgery: an update, 1992-2001.

BACKGROUND: "Prophylactic" aortic valve replacement (AVR) in patients with asymptomatic, mild-to-moderate aortic stenosis (AS) at the time of CABG is controversial. In 1994, we reported our initial experience involving 44 patients and have now updated our series in an attempt to further evaluate outcomes. METHODS: Between January 1992 and July 2001, 100 consecutive patients underwent reoperative AVR following previous CABG. Forty patients had their initial surgery at the Brigham & Women's Hospital (BWH) and 60 patients had their coronary surgery elsewhere. None of the 40 BWH patients had a mean valve gradient greater than 25 mmHg at the time of CABG. RESULTS: The mean time interval from CABG to AVR for the entire group was 9.0 years (range: 1.4-21 years). Overall operative mortality (OM) was 7% including 5 deaths (10.2%) among 49 patients requiring additional CABG at the time of AVR and 2 deaths (3.9%) among 51 patients without additional coronary artery intervention. This OM rate was a notable decrease from our earlier report of 18.2% (P = 0.07). Furthermore, operative mortality decreased progressively from 15.4% in 1992-1993 to 0% in 2000-2001 (P = NS). CONCLUSION: The OM of reoperative AVR following CABG has fallen in recent years. Given the relevance of newer techniques and approaches, it may be reasonable to adopt an expectant management approach in patients with asymptomatic mild-to-moderate AS (i.e., mean systolic gradient less than 25 mmHg) at the time of CABG.

Aged↗