Search

OBJECTIVES Despite growing evidence that aortic valve repair improves long-term patient outcomes and quality of life, aortic valves are mostly replaced. We evaluate the effect of aortic valve repair versus replacement in patients with dystrophic aortic root aneurysm up to 4 years. METHODS The multicentric CAVIAAR (Conservation Aortique Valvulaire dans les Insuffisances Aortiques et les Anévrismes de la Racine aortique) prospective cohort study enrolled 261 patients: 130 underwent standardized aortic valve repair (REPAIR) consisting of remodelling root repair with expansible aortic ring annuloplasty, and 131 received mechanical composite valve and graft replacement (REPLACE). Primary outcome was a composite criterion of mortality, reoperation, thromboembolic or major bleeding events, endocarditis or operating site infections, pacemaker implantation and heart failure, analysed with propensity score-weighted Cox model analysis. Secondary outcomes included major adverse valve-related events and components of primary outcome. RESULTS The mean age was 56.1 years, and valve was bicuspid in 115 patients (44.7%). Up to 4 years, REPAIR did not significantly differ from REPLACE in terms of primary outcome [Hazard Ratio (HR) 0.66 (0.39; 1.12)] but showed significantly less valve-related deaths (HR 0.09 [0.02; 0.34]) and major bleeding events (HR 0.37 [0.16; 0.85]) without an increased risk of valve-related reoperation (HR 2.10 [0.64; 6.96]). When accounting for the occurrence of multiple events in a single patient, the REPAIR group had half the occurrence of major adverse valve-related events (HR 0.51 [0.31; 0.86]). CONCLUSIONS Although the primary outcome did not significantly differ between the REPAIR and REPLACE groups, the trend is in favour of REPAIR by a significant reduction of valve-related deaths and major bleeding events. Long-term follow-up beyond 4 years is needed to confirm these findings.

Aortic valve surgery in non-elderly patients represents a very challenging patient population. The younger the patient is at the point of aortic valve intervention, the longer their anticipated life expectancy will be, with longer exposure to valve-related complications and risk for re-operation. Although the latest international guidelines recommend aortic valve repair in patients with aortic valve insufficiency, what we see in the real world is that the vast majority of these aortic valves are replaced. However, current prosthetic valves has now been shown to lead to significant loss of life expectancy for non-elderly patients up to 50% for patients in their 40s undergoing mechanical aortic valve replacement. Bioprostheses carry an even worse long-term survival, with higher rates of re-intervention. The promise of trans-catheter valve-in-valve technology is accentuating the trend of bioprosthetic implantation in younger patients, without yet the appropriate evidence. In contrast, aortic valve repair has shown excellent outcomes in terms of quality of life, freedom from re-operation and freedom from major adverse valve-related events with similar life expectancy to general population as it is also found for the Ross procedure, the only available living valve substitute. We are at a time when the paradigm of aortic valve surgery needs to change for the better. To better serve our patients, we must acquire high quality real-world evidence from multiple centers globally - this is the vision of the AVIATOR registry and our common responsibility.

Objective: Valve-sparing aortic root replacement has gained popularity in the last decade. This report provides short-term outcome and differences between patients after valve-sparing versus valve-...