Journal of thoracic disease · 2020
Comparison of outcomes following isolated repair of tricuspid versus bicuspid aortic valves.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Prinzing Anatol, Boehm Johannes, Erlebach Magdalena, Sideris Konstantinos, Lange Ruediger, Krane Markus
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Aortic valve repair (AV-repair) is an alternative treatment option for patients with aortic regurgitation (AR), but durability is still reason for concern, especially for bicuspid aortic valves (BAV). We retrospectively evaluated mid-term results after AV-repair in patients with BAV or tricuspid aortic valves (TAV), including reoperation rates, recurrence of regurgitation, and survival.
METHODS: Patients undergoing AV-repair between November 2004 and March 2016 without procedures involving the aortic root were included. Echocardiographic examinations were performed before and after the operation and at follow-up. Repair techniques were recorded and evaluated.
RESULTS: Of 150 patients, 89 (59.3%) had TAV and 61 (40.7%) BAV. AR ≥ moderate was found in 66 patients with TAV (74.2%) and 49 with BAV (80.3%). At discharge, 74 TAV-patients had ≤ mild AR (84.4%), 11 (12.4%) moderate. 57 patients (93.4%) with BAV had ≤ mild AR, 1 (1.6%) moderate and 2 (3.3%) severe. Mean follow-up was 4.4±2.7 years with ≤ mild AR in 56 TAV patients (73.7%) and moderate in 18 (20.2%). In patients with BAV, 43 (76.8%) had ≤ mild AR and 4 (6.6%) moderate. Survival in patients with TAV was significantly decreased compared to BAV (P=0.033), but reoperation-rates did not differ significantly (P=0.651).
CONCLUSIONS: AV-repair is a safe and feasible option in patients with AR and can achieve similar results in patients with TAV and BAV. The complexity of the repair technique predicts repair failure.
METHODS: Patients undergoing AV-repair between November 2004 and March 2016 without procedures involving the aortic root were included. Echocardiographic examinations were performed before and after the operation and at follow-up. Repair techniques were recorded and evaluated.
RESULTS: Of 150 patients, 89 (59.3%) had TAV and 61 (40.7%) BAV. AR ≥ moderate was found in 66 patients with TAV (74.2%) and 49 with BAV (80.3%). At discharge, 74 TAV-patients had ≤ mild AR (84.4%), 11 (12.4%) moderate. 57 patients (93.4%) with BAV had ≤ mild AR, 1 (1.6%) moderate and 2 (3.3%) severe. Mean follow-up was 4.4±2.7 years with ≤ mild AR in 56 TAV patients (73.7%) and moderate in 18 (20.2%). In patients with BAV, 43 (76.8%) had ≤ mild AR and 4 (6.6%) moderate. Survival in patients with TAV was significantly decreased compared to BAV (P=0.033), but reoperation-rates did not differ significantly (P=0.651).
CONCLUSIONS: AV-repair is a safe and feasible option in patients with AR and can achieve similar results in patients with TAV and BAV. The complexity of the repair technique predicts repair failure.