OBJECTIVESAortic valve repair procedures are technically challenging, and current intraoperative evaluation methods often fail to predict the final echocardiographic result. We have developed a... Show moreOBJECTIVESAortic valve repair procedures are technically challenging, and current intraoperative evaluation methods often fail to predict the final echocardiographic result. We have developed a novel intraoperative aortic valve visualization and pressurization (AVP) device, enabling valve inspection under physiological conditions, and measuring aortic valve insufficiency (AI) during cardioplegic arrest.METHODSThe AVP device is attached to the (neo)aorta, after any type of aortic valve repair, while the heart is arrested. The root is pressurized (60–80 mmHg) using a saline solution and an endoscope is introduced. The valve is inspected, and the amount of valvular leakage is measured. Postoperative ‘gold standard’ transesophageal echocardiogram measurements of AI are performed and compared against regurgitation volume measured.RESULTSIn 24 patients undergoing valve-sparing root replacement, the AVP device was used. In 22 patients, postoperative echocardiographic AI was ≤ grade 1. The median leakage was 90 ml/min, IQR 60–120 ml/min. In 3 patients, additional adjustments after visual inspection was performed. In 2 patients, with complex anatomy, the valve was replaced. In one, after evaluation with the device, there was undesirable result visually and residual AI of 330 ml/min, and in another, 260 ml/min residual AI was measured and valve restriction on visual inspection.CONCLUSIONSThe novel AVP device enables intraoperative evaluation of the valve under physiological conditions, while still on arrested heart, and allows for targeted adjustments. The AVP device can be an important aid for intraoperative evaluation of the aortic valve, during valve repair and valve-sparing procedures, thereby making the operative result more predictable and the operation more efficient. Show less
Arabkhani, B.; Klautz, R.J.M.; Heer, F. de; Kerchove, L. de; Khoury, G. el; Lansac, E.; ... ; Brakel, T.J. van 2023
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... Show moreOBJECTIVES: 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 & PLUSMN; 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. Show less
Arabkhani, B.; Klautz, R.J.M.; Heer, F. de; Kerchove, L. de; Khoury, G. el; Lansac, E.; ... ; Brakel, T.J. van 2023
OBJECTIVESOur 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... Show moreOBJECTIVESOur 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.METHODSThe 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.RESULTSWe 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).CONCLUSIONSThis 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. Show less
