Search

Introduction: Aortic valve regurgitation or the presence of a mechanical aortic valve prosthesis is a relative contraindication for implantation of left ventricular assist devices (LVAD). However, concomitant aortic valve replacement by a biological prosthesis is one of the options in this situation. We analyzed our recent experience with left ventricular assist device implantation and concomitant aortic valve replacement., Methods: Between January 1, 2008 and January 15, 2012, 318 adult patients (>18 years old) were supported with a long-term implantable LVAD in our institution. In 19, simultaneous aortic valve replacement (6 redo and 13 primary procedures) was performed. Patients were divided into 2 groups according to INTERMACS (IM) level: Group 1 (n = 7) consisted of patients with IM level 1-2 and Group 2 (n = 12) of IM level 3-4 patients. As a control cohort we analyzed all LVAD recipients during the study period (n = 299, study group excluded). The control cohort was similarly divided into two groups according to the IM level: Group 3 (n = 162) consisted of patients with IM level 1-2 and Group 4 (n = 137) of those with IM level 3-5. Perioperative data and outcomes in all groups were retrospectively analyzed and compared (Group 1 compared to Group 3; and Group 2 to Group 4)., Results: In study Groups 1 and 2 all patients were male; in Groups 3 and 4, 80% and 88% respectively were male. Median age distribution in Groups was 55, 61, 54, and 57 years respectively. Patients from Group 2 were significantly older than those from Group 4 (p = 0.039). Body mass index was significantly lower in Group 1 than in Group 3 (p = 0.033). Cardio-pulmonary bypass time was significantly longer in Groups 1 and 2 compared with Groups 3 and 4 respectively (p=0.001). Patients from Group 1 had a trend more often to develop right ventricular failure requiring a right ventricular assist device (RVAD) than those in Group 3 (p = 0.09). Intensive care unit stay duration of mechanical ventilation and in-hospital mortality in Group 1 were significantly higher than in Group 3 (p = 0.025, p = 0.005, p = 0.038). Patients from Group 2 had similar outcomes compared to those from Group 4., Conclusions: In stable patients, simultaneous aortic valve replacement and LVAD implantation are not associated with an impaired outcome. In patients with cardiogenic shock an additional aortic valve replacement may impair outcome; therefore alternative techniques should be considered.

Objective: We compared early and long-term results of cryopreserved homograft aortic root replacement in native valve endocarditis or prosthetic valve endocarditis associated with periannular abscess., Methods: Between May 1986 and December 2007, 1163 patients with endocarditis were operated upon. Of these, 221 patients (n = 185 men, median age 55 years) had homograft aortic root replacement due to 99 cases of native valve endocarditis (45%) and 122 of prosthetic valve endocarditis (55%). Perinannular abscess developed in 189 patients (86%), and aortoventricular dehiscence in 120 (63.5%) of them. Perioperative characteristics, probability of survival, freedom from recurrence, and reoperation were analyzed. Follow-up (mean 5.2 +/- 0.4 years, maximum 18.4 years) was completed in 96.8% with a total of 1127 patient-years., Results: Overall native valve endocarditis survival at 30 days and 1, 5, and 10 years was 83.8% +/- 3.7%, 76.6% +/- 4.3%, 66.5% +/- 4.9%, and 47.3% +/- 5.6%, respectively, significantly better than for patients with prosthetic valve endocarditis, who had a greater tendency toward abscess formation (P = .029). Thirty-one patients (14.0%) required reoperation either for structural valve deterioration (n = 19, 8.6%), with a greater tendency in patients aged <40 years, or for recurrent endocarditis of the homograft (n = 12, 5.4%). One-year reoperation mortality rate was 16.1% (n = 5)., Conclusions: Homograft aortic root replacement in active infective endocarditis with periannular abscess formation shows satisfactory early and long-term results with significantly better survival in native valve endocarditis than prosthetic valve endocarditis. It is associated with a low recurrence rate, although the risk of structural valve deterioration increases over time, especially in young patients, and reoperation remains a challenge. In our institution, the homograft remains the preferred valve substitute in active infective endocarditis with periannular abscess formation., (Copyright 2010 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: We compared early results of homograft aortic root replacement (ARR) in native (NVE) and prosthetic (PVE) aortic valve endocarditis in order to identify predictors for early mortality (<30 days)., Methods: Between 05/1986 and 12/2007, 1,163 endocarditis patients were operated upon. Of these, 221 patients (n = 185 men, median age 55 years) underwent homograft ARR due to 99 cases of NVE (45%) and 122 of PVE (55%) aortic root endocarditis. Demographics, clinical differences, survival rates and predictors of early mortality were analyzed. Follow-up (mean 5.2 +/- 0.4 years, maximum 18.4 years) was completed in 96.8% with a total of 1,127 patient years., Results: Main causes of the 47 (21.2%) early deaths were septic multiorgan failure in 23 (48.9%) and myocardial failure in 10 (21.3%) patients with a significantly better survival for NVE than for PVE patients (patients = 0.029). The highest ORs were found in the univariate analysis for preoperative development of septic shock (OR 14.28), preoperative necessity of ventilation (OR 7.08), high doses of catecholamines (OR 5.60), severe aortic root destruction (OR 5.12), emergency operation (OR 4.25) and persistent fever despite antibiotic treatment (OR 4.11). Multivariate analysis showed that preoperative ventilation (OR 5.43), persistent fever under antibiotic treatment (OR 2.84) and prosthetic endocarditis (OR 2.32) were independent risk factors for early mortality., Conclusions: Our results suggest that early outcome could be improved if patients were referred earlier for surgery. A multidisciplinary approach is necessary, involving at least specialists in intensive care medicine, cardiology, infectious disease and cardiac surgery in order to identify the optimal time for surgery and decrease early mortality.

Objective: The study aim was to analyze the performance profile of a large series of Mitroflow pericardial valves (Sorin Group Canada Inc. Mitroflow Division) in the very long term., Methods: Data from 1513 patients with isolated aortic valve replacement who received pericardial bioprostheses between 1986 and 2007 were analyzed. Cumulative duration of follow-up was 6164 patient-years with a maximum duration of 21 years. Actuarial rates of valve-related events were calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method and the Cox multivariate analysis to identify independent determinants of outcome., Results: Hospital mortality for elective surgery was 2.5%. Late death was 40.6%. Reoperation was required in 86 (5.7%) patients and was valve related in 83: structural valve deterioration in 64 (4.2%) patients, prosthetic valve endocarditis in 17 patients (1.1%), valve thrombosis in 1, and periprosthetic leak in 1. Rates of 20-year actuarial freedom from valve-related morbidity were as follows: structural valve deterioration 84.8% (actual 96.6%) in patients 70 years of age or older; thromboembolism 94.1%; and prosthetic valve endocarditis 96.8%. Twenty-year actual risk of reoperation for structural valve deterioration was 11.4% in all patients and 3.4%, in patients 70 years or age or older. Advanced age, renal insufficiency, pulmonary disease, and low body mass index were independent risk factors for late outcome (P < .001)., Conclusions: After 2 decades of follow-up, the Mitroflow pericardial aortic valve continues to be a valve of choice with a predictable low rate of valve-related events, particularly for patients over the age of 65 to 70 years and others with comorbidities.

A bicuspid aortic valve is found in approximately 2 % of the population. The data in the literature concerning the incidence of clinical manifestations are inconsistent, and a detailed comparison with patients with tricuspid aortic valve is not yet available. We analyzed the clinical manifestations and demographic data of patients with bicuspid and tricuspid aortic valves who underwent an operation on the aortic valve and/or the ascending aorta over a five-year period. The subjects were 2570 adult patients, of whom 555 (21.6 %) had a bicuspid aortic valve. The patients with a bicuspid aortic valve were, on average, 10 years younger at surgery than those with a tricuspid aortic valve (57.0 +/- 13.1 vs. 66.4 +/- 11.8 years, P < 0.0001). The spectrum of diseases necessitating aortic valve surgery was the same in both groups of patients. An increased diameter of the ascending aorta > or = 4.5 cm was seen significantly more often in patients with bicuspid aortic valve (22.7 % vs. 5.5 %, P < 0.0001). We conclude that there are important differences in clinical manifestations between patients with bicuspid and tricuspid aortic valves, so that patients with bicuspid valve need special attention.

Background and Aim of the Study: Patients with bicuspid aortic valves (BAV) tend to develop dilatation of the ascending aorta. The study aim was to analyze differences in aortic root diameter and configuration in patients with bicuspid and tricuspid aortic valve disease., Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted of the angiographies of 461 patients allocated to four groups with: (i) BAV disease with (n = 179) and (ii) without (n = 78) dilatation of the ascending aorta; (iii) tricuspid aortic valve disease (TAV) and dilatation of the ascending aorta (n = 154); and (iv) coronary artery disease (CAD), TAV and normal diameter of the ascending aorta (n=50). Diameters and distances in the aortic root region were measured, and the ascending aorta configuration analyzed., Results: The diameter of the ascending aorta in patients with BAV and dilatation was significantly larger than in those with TAV and dilatation (26.6 +/- 5.22 versus 24.4 +/- 3.74 mm/m2, p = 0.002). Distances between aortic valve level and point of maximum diameter of the ascending aorta at the outer and inner curve of the vessel in patients with BAV without dilatation were greater than those of the CAD group (31.1 +/- 5.27 versus 28.0 +/- 4.86 mm/m2, p = 0.002 and for the indexed values 21.6 +/- 4.05 versus 20.0 +/- 2.71 mm/m2, p = 0.011). All patients with BAV and enlargement of the ascending aorta showed asymmetric dilatation of the vessel., Conclusion: All patients with BAV had an abnormal configuration of the ascending aorta. In cases with enlargement of the ascending aorta exclusively, asymmetric dilatation at the convexity of the vessel occurred. Patients with BAV and normal ascending aorta diameter showed an elongation of this vessel segment.

It is unclear whether ascending aorta dilation in patients with bicuspid aortic valve is caused by abnormal hemodynamics or by a common developmental defect of the aortic valve and aortic wall. We performed an echocardiographic study to examine the differences in hemodynamic stress at the ascending aorta in patients with bicuspid and tricuspid aortic valve. We studied prospectively 58 consecutive patients referred for preoperative echocardiographic examination with aortic valve stenosis and either bicuspid or tricuspid valve and an ascending aortic diameter of

Objective: The study was conducted to evaluate the long-term results of homograft reconstruction of the left ventricular outflow tract with a cryopreserved aortic homograft in the presence of aortic root abscess associated with a biofilm bacterial infection., Methods: Between January 1987 and December 2003, 161 patients with aortic root abscess underwent freehand aortic valve (FAVR, N = 78) and aortic root replacement (ARR, N = 83) with an antibiotic treated cryopreserved aortic homograft. Their mean age was 53.1+/-15.6 years. Endocarditis of the native valve was found in 80 patients and of the prosthetic valve in 81; of the prosthetic valves 49 (60.5%) were mechanical and 32 (39%) bioprosthetic. Aortic ventricular discontinuity was found in 83 patients. The common responsible microorganisms were the biofilm bacteria: Staphylococcus (S. epidermidis: 34, S. aureus: 13) in 47 patients followed by Enterococcus in 23 and Streptococcus in 39. Surgery was urgent in 80 patients and emergent in 81, of whom 44 were in cardiogenic shock. Follow-up totaled 810.8 patient-years (mean: 5.0+/-4.3 years) and was 100% complete., Results: Operative mortality was 9.3% for elective/urgent and 14.3% for emergency surgery. A total of 7.3% patients died after hospital discharge during the 17-year follow-up period. The actuarial patient survival at 17 years was 70.4+/-3.6%. Early and late residual/recurrent infections and paravalvular leaks occurred in 4.3 and 2.5%, respectively. Reoperations were carried out in 30 patients, 11 for residual/recurrent infection and paravalvular leaks. Twenty-one patients with FAVR and 9 with ARR techniques underwent reoperation. Early reoperation rate was 4.3%. The actuarial freedom from residual/recurrent infection and paravalvular leaks was 91.6+/-2.4%. Actuarial freedom from reoperation at 17 years was 75+/-3.7%. It was 82.9+/-5.5% for ARR and 63.5+/-6.7% for AAVR technique. The actuarial freedom from structural valve deterioration (SVD) at 17 years was 98.6+/-0.4.% at a rate of %/patient-year., Conclusions: Radical debridement of the infected aortic root and homograft ARR offer a low recurrent infection rate and an overall low valve-related morbidity and mortality for up to 17 years. The antibiotic permeable cryopreserved homograft has proven to be resistant to biofilm bacterial infection.

Background and Aim of the Study: It is generally believed that the pericardial tissue valve is associated with a greater propensity to early structural failure and subsequent valve-related complications. However, a modified valve design during recent years has considerably improved the clinical durability of this bioprosthesis., Methods: Between April 1986 and December 2003, single Mitroflow pericardial valve prostheses were inserted in the aortic position in 1,037 patients (mean age 72.4 +/- 8.4 years). Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) was performed in 373 patients (36%). Preoperative echocardiographic findings of structural valve deterioration (SVD) were confirmed at reoperation. Total follow up was 5,022 patient-years (pt-yr) (mean 4.85 +/- 4.7 years) and was 99.7% complete (three patients lost)., Results: Early (30-day) mortality was 2.9% for elective surgery; 434 patients (41.9%) died during the follow up period. Actuarial survival at 17 years was 23.2 +/- 2%. Actuarial freedom from valve-related mortality at 17 years was 92.0 +/- 2.2%, whereas the linearized mortality rate was 0.4%/pt-yr. Linearized valve-related complications occurred at a rate of 3.6%/pt-yr (n = 122). SVD of Mitroflow bioprostheses occurred at a rate of 1.0%/pt-yr, and caused stenosis (36.7%), insufficiency (20.4%) and combined stenosis and insufficiency (42.9%). Actual freedom from SVD at 17 years was 95.3 +/- 0.7% for all patients, 96.2 +/- 0.6% for those aged > 60 years, and 99.0 +/- 0.4% for those aged > 70 years., Conclusion: The Mitroflow pericardial bioprosthesis, in the aortic position, provides an excellent clinical performance and a low rate of valve-related morbidity, mortality and reoperation for up to 17 years. The prosthesis also demonstrates satisfactory hemodynamic performance, and is therefore recommended for patients aged > or = 70 years and for those aged 60-69 years with comorbidities.

Objective: Mortality in active infective endocarditis (AIE) is substantial and reinfection can strongly influence outcome. Assessment of factors influencing mortality is important. We studied 108 (33%) patients suffering from root abscess out of a total of 327 AIE patients admitted to the Deutsches Herzzentrum Berlin for surgical treatment between 1996 and 2003. Among them were 53 (25.5% of all patients) who were diagnosed as having secondary infective mitral valve disease (SMVD). Mean age was 53+/-14.2 years; there were 37 men and 16 women., Methods: Risk factors were assessed on the basis of clinical, hemodynamic, echocardiographic and surgical information. Mean follow-up was 325+/-251 days with complete echocardiographic examination performed in patients with double valve surgery. The differences between groups were analyzed using Student's t-test. Multivariate analysis for the whole group suffering from abscess was performed to identify independent factors influencing mortality., Results: In 19 (35.8%) patients suffering from SMVD mitral valve reconstruction was undertaken and mitral valve replacement was performed in 34 (64.2%) patients. There were 27 patients treated with a Shelhigh prosthesis: 18 with double valve replacement (both Shelhigh) and nine with an aortic Shelhigh prosthesis and concomitant mitral valve reconstruction. Homografts were used in 17 patients, with mitral reconstruction in 10 and a stented mitral prosthesis in seven. In nine cases two stented valve prostheses were used. The calculated mean Doppler gradient for homografts and Shelhigh in aortic position was 12 (+/-5.7) and 15 (+/-4.6), respectively (NS). The following predisposing factors for mortality were assessed: severe damage of aortic annulus (OR 4.65, CI 1.22-17.1, P=0.0159); septic shock (OR 3.44, CI 0.85-13.9, P=0.07) and poor ejection fraction (<40%), and dilated LV., Conclusions: Excessive mortality reaching 29% was noted in patients suffering from AIE with aortic ring abscess and SMVD requiring double valve surgery. Double valve surgery with semi-stented Dacron-free valve prostheses is associated with a low rate of reinfection and good function of the implants. The most potent independent risk factors for death were septic shock and severe aortic root destruction.

Background: The valve substitute of choice in active infective aortic valve endocarditis complicated by annulus abscess in our institution is the cryopreserved homograft. To avoid implantation of any prosthetic material, the Shelhigh No-React stentless valves and conduits may be considered an alternative when no suitable homograft is available., Methods: Between March 1986 and January 2001, 452 homografts were implanted in the aortic position. From January 2000 to August 2001, 75 Shelhigh No-React prostheses were implanted at our institution. In 25 consecutive patients (study group) with aortic annulus abscess, urgent aortic valve replacement with the Shelhigh SuperStentless and Stentless Aortic Valve Conduit was undertaken. Patients (16 male, 9 female; age, 49 +/- 19 years) were studied with follow-up until March 2002. The control group comprised 68 consecutive historical patients (46 male, 22 female; age, 53 +/- 14.4 years) with similar disease treated between January 1997 and December 1999 in whom an aortic homograft was implanted. This group was also followed up until March 2002. Demographic data and preoperative characteristics of the patients were without significant differences. Patients were studied by echocardiography., Results: Sixty-day mortality was 16% (11 patients) in the control group compared with 12% (3 patients) in the study group. Recurrent infection occurred in 4% in both groups. The instantaneous and mean Doppler gradients yielded no significant differences (19.4 +/- 10.4 mm Hg and 11.8 +/- 5.7 mm Hg versus 18.2 +/- 8.7 mm Hg and 10.9 +/- 5.3 mm Hg, respectively). The mean effective orifice area calculated from Doppler flow velocity for the stentless valve was 2.3 +/- 0.6 cm2. Preoperative evaluation of left ventricular dimensions and global left ventricular systolic function did not vary significantly between the two groups. However, postoperatively evaluated left ventricular end-diastolic diameter dimensions in the study group were significantly smaller than those in the control group (47.6 +/- 7.9 mm versus 56 +/- 9.5 mm; p = 0.05). Ejection fraction was similar in both groups (56.2% +/- 12.8% for the study [Shelhigh] and 52.6% +/- 16.8% for the control [homograft] group)., Conclusions: Our experience with both the Shelhigh No-React SuperStentless and Stentless Aortic Valve Conduit in patients with native or prosthetic aortic valve endocarditis appears to demonstrate good results, similar to those of cryopreserved homografts. Ease of implantation and favorable effective orifice area and pressure gradients, as well as the No-React anticalcification treatment, are promising factors.

Background: Patients with bicuspid aortic valves tend to develop dilatation of the ascending aorta. The aim of this study was to analyze whether or not there is any histologic difference in the aortic media of patients with a bicuspid aortic valve or a tricuspid aortic valve., Methods: A morphometric analysis of the wall of the ascending aorta was performed in 107 patients with bicuspid aortic valves undergoing aortic valve operations. The thickness of the elastic lamellae of the aortic media and the distances between the elastic lamellae were measured with the use of an image analysis system. The histologic specimens of the ascending aorta from 61 surgical patients with tricuspid aortic valve disease served as a control., Results: The patients with bicuspid aortic valves had thinner elastic lamellae of the aortic media (2.71 +/- 0.23 microm) of the ascending aortic wall than the patients with tricuspid aortic valve disease (2.83 +/- 0.23 microm) (p = 0.006). The patients with bicuspid aortic valves also had greater distances between the elastic lamellae (27.21 +/- 8.69 microm) of the ascending aortic wall in comparison with the patients with tricuspid aortic valve disease (24.34 +/- 5.32 microm) (p = 0.033). There was no difference in the total thickness of the aortic media between the groups (p = 0.62)., Conclusions: Patients with a bicuspid aortic valve had thinner elastic lamellae of the aortic media and greater distances between the elastic lamellae than patients with a tricuspid aortic valve.

Background: Individuals with bicuspid aortic valve tend to develop a dilatation of the ascending aorta. It is controversial whether the dilated ascending aorta should be replaced with a tube graft or whether the diameter of the aorta should be reduced by reduction aortoplasty. Furthermore, it is unclear whether an external prosthetic support of the reduction aortoplasty is necessary. The aim of this study is to analyze the results of reduction aortoplasty with and without external prosthetic support., Methods: Between 1985 and 1999, a total of 115 patients with bicuspid aortic valve and dilatation of the ascending aorta underwent reduction aortoplasty in combination with other types of open-heart procedure at our institution. The diameter of the ascending aorta was measured before and early after surgery and then later between 12 and 144 months (mean 40 months) postoperatively using echocardiography and computed tomography., Results: The reduction aortoplasty decreased the internal diameter of the aorta from 48.7+/-5.1 mm preoperatively to 36.9+/-3.6 mm early after surgery (p = 0.0001). During follow-up, there was no increase of the aortic diameter either in patients with external prosthetic support or in 97 of 106 patients without external prosthetic support. The diameter increased only in 9 (8.5%) of 106 patients without external aortic support by 4 to 8 mm. In patients with postoperative diameter increase, the aortic diameter after operation had been higher than in patients without a postoperative increase of the aortic diameter (41.4+/-3.1 mm vs 36.6+/-3.4 mm; p < 0.0001)., Conclusions: Reduction aortoplasty showed good long-term results in patients with bicuspid aortic valve and dilatation of the ascending aorta. Redilation of the aorta occurred only in patients with a suboptimal diameter reduction.

Objective: Cryopreserved homograft valves have been used for acute infective aortic root endocarditis with great success but it is compounded by its availability in all sizes. The long-term clinical results of geometric mismatched homografts are not well defined and addressed., Methods: Over a 15-year period (April 1986-June 2001), 816 patients presented with active infective endocarditis. One hundred and eighty-two of the patients aged between 9 and 78 years (mean: 51.0 +/- 1.13 years) consisting of 142 males and 40 females received homograft aortic valves. One hundred and ten patients were in NYHA functional class III and 72 in class IV and in cardiogenic shock. Of the patients, 2.7% suffered from septic embolism. One hundred and twenty-four (68.1%) patients presented with periannular abscesses and 58 (31.9%) with no abscess while 107 native valve (NVE) and 75 prosthetic valve (PVE) endocarditis were diagnosed preoperatively by transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) and confirmed intraoperatively. Freehand subcoronary implantation (FSCI) was used in 106 patients and root replacement in 76 patients., Results: The operative death was 8.5% and for patients in NYHA functional class IV and in cardiogenic shock was 14.5%. Late mortality rate was 7.9%. Patient survival after discharge from hospital at 1 year was 97% and at 10 years was 91%, respectively. Thirty-one (22.1%) patients underwent reoperation after 1.7 years (mean) with two deaths (6.4%). Early (< or = 60 days) and late reinfection rate was 2.7 and 3.6%, respectively. Freedom from reoperation for matched and undersized homografts at 10-13 years was 85 and 55%, respectively. The univariate model identified undersized homograft (P=0.002), FSCI (P=0.09) and reinfection (P=0.0001) as independent risk factors for developing early and late valve dysfunction resulting in reoperation and homograft explant., Conclusion: Early aggressive valve replacement with homograft for active infective aortic root endocarditis with periannular abscesses is more successful than delayed last resort surgery. Homografts exhibit excellent clinical performance and durability with a low rate of reinfection, if properly inserted. Undersized homograft is an incremental risk factor for early and late reoperation.

Objectives: We evaluated the effect of homograft/native aortic root geometric matching and mismatching on valve survival and myocardial remodeling., Methods: Between January 1, 1987 and March 2000, a total of 292 patients, aged 1.5-78 years (mean, 46.2 years), underwent freehand subcoronary aortic valve (AVR; n=207) and root (ARR; n=85) replacement with matched and mismatched cryopreserved homografts. All patients had pre- and postoperative two-dimensional Doppler echocardiographic studies. Two-hundred and forty-three survivors, excluding children with complete data on sizing, were followed at a total follow-up time of 1269 patient-years. Seventy percent received matched and 30% received mismatched aortic homografts. The homograft valve sizes ranged from 19 to 28 mm., Results: Hospital death for elective first operation was 2.3%, and late death after a mean follow-up of 52 months was 7.9%. The patient survival at 14 years was 92+/-2%. By linear regression analysis, matched homografts were equal to or 1-2 mm less than the native aortic annulus (r(2)=0.73). The valve survival in patients with AVR and ARR was 72+/-4 and 80+/-8% at 14 years, respectively. The freedom from reoperation was 92+/-5, 77+/-4 and 48+/-10% at 14 years for matched, oversized and undersized homografts, respectively (P=0.001). The postoperative cardiac index of patients with 22 and 24 mm homografts was 3.8-4.1 l/m(2), and there was a regression of the left ventricular mass and end-diastolic diameter (P=0.001)., Conclusions: The aortic homograft offers an excellent long-term clinical result. A mismatched homograft is a risk factor for postoperative aortic incompetence, reinfection with pseudoaneurysmal formation and reoperation for the freehand subcoronary implantation technique during the first 7 years of the postoperative period. It is prudent therefore to avoid mismatched homografts and use rather a properly sized stentless xenograft if a root replacement is not indicated.

Aims: The aim of the study was to evaluate the long-term results of allograft and prosthetic valve replacement in the treatment of infective aortic valve endocarditis with periannular abscess., Methods: Between March 1988 and March 1996, 65 patients underwent surgery for active aortic valve endocarditis and paravalvular abscess. The indications for surgery were congestive heart failure, systemic emboli and atrioventricular block III. The pre-operative evaluation was performed with transoesophageal echocardiography. Aortic valve replacement was performed with allografts in 47 cases, with mechanical valves in 15, and bioprosthetic valves in three cases. All patients with total ventricular-aortic dehiscence and prosthetic valve endocarditis were treated with allografts., Results: The 30-day mortality rate was 23.5% in the prosthetic group, when compared with 8.5% in the patients treated with allografts. The rate of recurrent valve infections during the 11-year follow-up period was 27.1% in the prosthetic group and 3.2% in the allograft group. The actuarial 11-year survival rate was 82.1% in the allograft group and 64.7% in the prosthetic group., Conclusion: Aortic allografts are an effective treatment for infective aortic valve endocarditis with associated periannular abscess. The operative mortality and recurrent infection rates are lower than in the prosthetic group, resulting in a significantly higher survival rate. Diagnosis and surgical management of these cases should be based on pre-operative transoesophageal echocardiography., (Copyright 2000 The European Society of Cardiology.)

Background and Aims of the Study: The traditional method of aortic valve replacement with a homograft has been free-hand insertion in the subcoronary position. Recently, total root replacement has become increasingly popular. We present our experiences with both methods in this study., Material and Methods: Between January 1, 1987 and March 31, 1996, 208 patients underwent homograft replacement of the aortic valve (free-hand subcoronary technique, n = 147 and root replacement, n = 61). The age of the patients ranged between 1.5 and 78 years with a mean age of 41 years. There were 55 females and 153 males. Ninety-four patients had infected aortic root (with 47 ring abscesses) and 114 patients had sterile aortic roots. In these series, patients with small aortic root, complicated endocarditis, dilated aortic annulus and aneurysm received aortic root replacement., Results: The hospital mortality of patients with non-infected and infected roots was 2.6% and 8.5% respectively making an overall hospital mortality of 5.2%. In patients with free-hand subcoronary valve implantation (AVR) and root replacement (ARR) techniques the hospital mortality was 3.4% and 9.8% respectively. The major risk factor for death was New York Heart Association functional class IV with sepsis. Eight years patient survival in patients with AVR and ARR was 95% +/- 2% and 86% +/- 4% respectively. Freedom from structural deterioration in patients with AVR and ARR was 96.5% +/- 2% and 98% +/- 3% whereas freedom from reoperation was identical 94% +/- 2% and 93% +/- 4% respectively. However, the incidence of reoperation in patients under 40 years of age, particularly in children (< 16 years of age) during the eight years' follow up was 27%. The rate of recurrent endocarditis was 3.6% in ARR patients and development of postoperative pseudoaneurysm formation occurred in 1.4% of AVR patients with endocarditis., Conclusion: In conclusion, ARR technique provides low rate of reoperation in the early postoperative period. Cryopreserved homografts in the subcoronary position in adult patients < 40 years of age showed excellent medium term durability and hemodynamic performance providing evidence that long term outcome with a meticulous subcoronary implantation technique is comparable to that with the ARR technique.