Search

Open in new tab Download slide OBJECTIVES Our goal was to evaluate the outcome of valve-sparing root replacement (VSRR) and to compare the outcomes to those of patients having composite valve–graft conduit aortic root replacement (CVG-ARR) in a cohort of patients with aortic root aneurysm ± valve insufficiency, without valvular stenosis. Although valve-sparing procedures are preferable in young patients, there is a lack of comparative data in comparable patients. METHODS The VSRR procedures were performed in 2005 patients, and 218 patients underwent a CVG-ARR procedure. Exclusion criteria included aortic dissection, endocarditis and valvular stenosis. Propensity score matching (3:1 ratio) was applied to compare VSRR (reimplantation 33% and remodelling 67%) and CVG-ARR. RESULTS We matched 218 patients with CVG-ARR to 654 patients with VSRR (median age, 56.0; median follow-up was 4 years in both groups; interquartile range 1–5 years). Early mortality was 1.1% of those who had VSRR versus 2.3% in those who had CVG-ARR. Survival was 95.4% [95% confidence interval (CI) 94–97%] at 5 years in patients who had VSRR versus 85.4% (95% CI 82–92%) in those who had CVG-ARR; P  = 0.002. Freedom from reintervention at 5 years was 96.8% (95% CI 95–98%) with VSRR and 95.4% (95% CI 91–99%) with CVG-ARR (P  = 0.98). Additionally, there were more thromboembolic, endocarditis and bleeding events in the patients who had CVG-ARR (P  = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS This multicentre study shows excellent results after valve-sparing root replacement in patients with an ascending aortic aneurysm with or without valve insufficiency. Compared to composite valve-graft aortic root replacement, survival is better and valve-related events are fewer. Consequently, valve-sparing procedures should be considered whenever a durable repair is feasible. We advocate a valve-sparing strategy even in more complex cases when performed in experienced centres. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia is a potentially lethal disease affecting young people. The different types of treatment for it and efficacy of treatment is discussed.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate our experience with patients reoperated after primary repair of atrioventricular septal defect (AVSD) and identify predictors of poor outcome. METHODS: Between 1976 and 2014, 69 patients were reoperated after primary repair of partial (n = 28), intermediate (n = 15) or complete (n = 26) AVSD. RESULTS: Median age at first reoperation was 62.4 (range, 1.6–845) months, median interval to first reoperation was 22.3 (range, 0.2–598) months. Main indications for first reoperation included left atrioventricular valve (LAVV) pathology (66%), residual septal defect (19%) and left ventricle outflow tract obstruction (LVOTO; 4%). Procedures to address LAVV pathology included various valvuloplasties in 47 (77%) patients and valve replacement in 14 (23%) patients. A second, third, fourth and fifth reoperation was required in 27, 12, 4 and 1 patient, respectively. Most common procedures were LAVV replacement (LAVVR), LVOTO relief, pacemaker implantation and right atrioventricular valve procedure. Freedom from reoperation after LAVV valvuloplasty (LAVVP) was 84 and 62% at 1 and 10 years, respectively. There were 10 early and 4 late deaths. Estimated overall survival at 1, 5 and 10 years was 87, 83 and 83%, respectively. Double orifice LAVV (DOLAVV) was a risk factor for in-hospital and overall mortality [odds ratio (OR) = 14.5; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.2–178.7; P = 0.037 and hazard ratio (HR) = 6.8; 95% CI = 1.5–31.7; P = 0.015, respectively]. Patients with LAVVP and LAVVR differed significantly in overall survival (P = 0.014). At the last follow-up (median, 9.8; range, 0–34 years), 84% survivors were in New York Heart Association Class I or II. CONCLUSIONS: Many patients reoperated after primary AVSD repair needed surgical reintervention. LAVV pathology was the most common indication for reoperation. DOLAVV was a risk factor for mortality. Particular AVSD type did not appear to be a risk factor for mortality or LAVVP failure. There is some evidence for the close relationship between LAVV pathology and LVOTO in subjects undergoing reoperation after primary AVSD repair as some patients with initial LAVV problems needed LVOTO repair later on and vice versa. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The limited availability of donor valves and experimental evidence that pulmonary valves can withstand systemic pressure made us use cryopreserved pulmonary homografts as aortic valve substitutes. We observed a high incidence of early reoperation because of severe graft insufficiency due to cuspal tears. The mid-term results are evaluated in this study and histological analysis of explanted homografts is performed to investigate the cause of graft failure. Methods: From December 1991 to April 1994, 16 patients (13 male; mean age 37.3 years, range 21–59 years) underwent aortic valve replacement with a cryopreserved pulmonary homograft. The indication was endocarditis (n=4), bioprosthesis degeneration (n=3) or congenital aortic valve disease (n=9). All homografts were implanted freehand in the subcoronary position. All patients were contacted for follow-up and recent echo-Doppler studies were reviewed. Six explanted homografts were examined microscopically using routine histological techniques to analyze changes in cell population, collagen and elastic fiber structure. Results: Follow-up was complete in all patients. Reoperation was required in ten patients because of severe graft incompetence (mean implantation time 5.9 years, range 2.8–8.0 years). In two patients, recurrent endocarditis was the cause of graft failure. In the other eight patients the leaflets looked pliable and thin with gross tearing in one or more cusps. The histopathologic changes observed were remarkably similar in all examined grafts: the cusp tissue was almost non-cellular and the collagen fiber structure had mostly disappeared. At the site of rupture, the tissue had become thin with strongly degenerated collagen and elastic fiber structure. In the six patients with a homograft remaining in situ, echo-Doppler showed trivial to mild insufficiency in five cases and moderate to severe in one case, whereas no significant gradients were observed. Conclusions: We concluded that structural reduction of cell number and degenerative alterations in the molecular composition of the extracellular matrix in valve tissue is the main cause of early graft failure in this series. The use of cryopreserved pulmonary homografts in the systemic circulation is therefore not advised. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: In patients with repaired tetralogy of Fallot (rTOF), multiple reoperations or percutaneous interventions after pulmonary valve replacement (PVR) may be necessary due to limited homograft durability. However, data to guide individualised prediction of homograft durability remain scarce. The aim of this study was to provide risk models for RV to pulmonary artery homograft durability.Methods: This retrospective multicentre study included consecutive patients with rTOF who had undergone PVR at an age of >12 years. Homograft dysfunction was defined as at least moderate pulmonary regurgitation (PR) or pulmonary stenosis (PS) (pressure gradient ≥36 mm Hg) as assessed by echocardiography. Reintervention was defined as percutaneous intervention or redo-PVR.Results: A total of 153 patients with rTOF were included (62% male, mean age at PVR 31±11 years, pulmonary homograft 96%, follow-up 9.6 years (IQR 5.9, 13.3)). Average freedom from homograft dysfunction and reintervention after 10 years was 74% and 89%, respectively. In multivariable Cox proportional hazards analysis, postoperative PS ≥20 mm Hg (HR 6.52, 95% CI 3.09 to 13.7), postoperative PR ≥ grade 1 (HR 3.13, 95% CI 1.45 to 6.74) and age at PVR <18 years (HR 3.52, 95% CI 1.64 to 7.53) were independently predictive for homograft dysfunction. In patients without any risk factor, 10-year freedom from homograft dysfunction and reintervention was excellent (91% and 96%, respectively) in contrast to patients with ≥2 risk factors (25% and 73%, respectively).Conclusions: Individualised prediction of homograft durability in patients with rTOF can be guided by early postoperative echocardiography. In adult patients without early postoperative PS or PR, homograft dysfunction and reintervention are unlikely to occur within 10 years, and follow-up may be less stringent. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Our goal was to evaluate the outcome of valve-sparing root replacement (VSRR) and to compare the outcomes to those of patients having composite valve-graft conduit aortic root replacement (CVG-ARR) in a cohort of patients with aortic root aneurysm ± valve insufficiency, without valvular stenosis. Although valve-sparing procedures are preferable in young patients, there is a lack of comparative data in comparable patients., Methods: The VSRR procedures were performed in 2005 patients, and 218 patients underwent a CVG-ARR procedure. Exclusion criteria included aortic dissection, endocarditis and valvular stenosis. Propensity score matching (3:1 ratio) was applied to compare VSRR (reimplantation 33% and remodelling 67%) and CVG-ARR., Results: We matched 218 patients with CVG-ARR to 654 patients with VSRR (median age, 56.0; median follow-up was 4 years in both groups; interquartile range 1-5 years). Early mortality was 1.1% of those who had VSRR versus 2.3% in those who had CVG-ARR. Survival was 95.4% [95% confidence interval (CI) 94-97%] at 5 years in patients who had VSRR versus 85.4% (95% CI 82-92%) in those who had CVG-ARR; P = 0.002. Freedom from reintervention at 5 years was 96.8% (95% CI 95-98%) with VSRR and 95.4% (95% CI 91-99%) with CVG-ARR (P = 0.98). Additionally, there were more thromboembolic, endocarditis and bleeding events in the patients who had CVG-ARR (P = 0.02)., Conclusions: This multicentre study shows excellent results after valve-sparing root replacement in patients with an ascending aortic aneurysm with or without valve insufficiency. Compared to composite valve-graft aortic root replacement, survival is better and valve-related events are fewer. Consequently, valve-sparing procedures should be considered whenever a durable repair is feasible. We advocate a valve-sparing strategy even in more complex cases when performed in experienced centres., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery.)