MINNEAPOLIS – Despite the complexity of aortic valve–sparing techniques, early outcomes and 1-year survival were similar to those achieved with valve replacing during root replacement surgery in patients with Marfan syndrome in a prospective registry study.
Major adverse valve-related events (MAVREs) at 1 year were also comparable, although there was an increase, of course, in aortic valve regurgitation with valve sparing (7% vs. 0%), Dr. Joseph Coselli said at the annual meeting of the American Association for Thoracic Surgery.
"Follow-up is needed for this particular incident because we don’t know exactly what’s going to happen to these 2-plus aortic regurgitations," he said. "It’s quite possible they may remain stable over a long period of time and don’t represent a failure of the concept."
In an initial report from the international registry, valve-sparing techniques were the most common, and provided comparable 30-day outcomes in 151 patients (J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2009;137:1124-32).
The current analysis involved 316 patients, aged 4-70 years, who underwent aortic valve–sparing (AVS) (n = 239) or aortic valve–replacing (AVR) (n = 63 mechanical and 14 tissue) root replacement surgery at 19 centers between March 2005 and November 2010. The type of operation was determined by clinical factors, and by surgeon and patient preference. AVR surgery was considered the only option in 17% of patients. At 1 year, clinical follow-up was complete in 98% and imaging follow-up in 93%.
"Interestingly, when we started out this particular collection of patients, over 30% were receiving aortic valve replacement, but toward the end of this observational study, late 2010, virtually almost all patients were receiving aortic valve sparing," said Dr. Coselli, chief of adult cardiac surgery at Baylor College of Medicine, Texas Heart Institute, Houston.
AVS patients were younger (33 vs. 39 years); had smaller sinuses of Valsalva (49 vs. 53 mm); and had less acute dissection (3% vs. 9%), chronic dissection (3% vs. 12%), and previous cardiovascular surgery (5% vs. 14%).
Aortic-sparing techniques required significantly longer cardiopulmonary bypass time (195 vs. 152 minutes) and aortic clamp time (156 vs. 115 minutes), but cut ICU time from 46 hours with AVR surgery to 26 hours, ventilator support time from 12 to 8 hours, and hospital length of stay from 7 to 6 days, Dr. Coselli reported.
At 30 days, MAVREs were reported in 6 patients in the AVR group and 15 in the AVS group (P = .4), with no differences in nonstructural dysfunction (1 vs. 7), embolism (1 vs. 3), or bleeding (2 vs. 3 events).
Two AVS patients required early reoperation: One required same-day reintervention because of coronary artery kinking after a Florida sleeve procedure, and the second needed reintervention because of a coronary pseudoaneurysm 6 days after a David-V procedure, he said. Two early deaths occurred, one in each group, but neither was valve related.
One-year survival rates were 98% after AVS surgery and 97% after AVR surgery (4 vs. 2 deaths; P = .06).
At 1 year, MAVREs occurred in 8 AVR and 35 AVS patients (P = .5). There was no significant difference between AVR and AVS in freedom from valve-related death (1 vs. 2), embolism (2 vs. 4 events), reintervention (0 vs. 1), endocarditis (1 vs. 0), valve thrombosis (0 both), or valve-related morbidity (7 vs. 28), Dr. Coselli said.
The AVS group had significantly more nonstructural dysfunction/structural valve deterioration (23 events vs. 1 event; P = .04), but significantly less bleeding (3 vs. 5 events; P = .01).
In a Cox regression analysis at 1 year, the type of surgery was not associated with overall survival, MAVREs, or any other valve-related outcome, he said.
Dr. Coselli reported research support from St. Jude Medical; an educational grant, consultancy, and royalties from Vascutek Terumo; and research support, speaking for, and steering committee membership with Medtronic. Two coauthors reported consultant/advisory board participation with Medtronic or Edwards Lifesciences.