Interactive cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 2017
Biological solutions to aortic root replacement: valve-sparing versus bioprosthetic conduit‡.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Gaudino Mario, Di Franco Antonino, Ohmes Lucas B, Weltert Luca, Lau Christopher, Gambardella Ivancarmine, Salica Andrea, Munjal Monica, Elsayed Mohamed, Girardi Leonard N, De Paulis Ruggero, Cornell International Consortium for Aortic Surgery (CICAS)
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Valve-sparing operations and root replacement with a biologic composite conduit are viable options in aortic root aneurysm. This study was conceived to compare the early and mid-term results of these 2 procedures.
METHODS: From September 2002 to November 2015, 749 consecutive patients underwent either a valve-sparing operation or a root replacement with a biologic composite conduit at 2 institutions. Propensity score matching was used to compare similar cohorts of patients in the overall population and in the ≤ 55 and ≥ 65-year age groups.
RESULTS: Overall operative mortality was 0.4%, mean age 57.4 ± 14.3 years, 84.6% were male. Individuals in the biologic composite conduit group were older and had worse preoperative risk profiles [chronic pulmonary disease (5.5% vs 0.9%; P = 0.001), diabetes (6.4% vs 1.5%; P = 0.001) and NYHA > 2 (25.2% vs 5.2%; P < 0.001)]. Mean follow-up was 27.5 ± 28.4 months. In the unmatched population, there was no difference in in-hospital deaths (0 in the valve-sparing versus 3 in the biologic composite conduit group; P = 0.12). These findings were confirmed in the propensity-matched populations. During follow-up, more patients in the biologic composite conduit group underwent reoperation on the aortic valve (2.6% vs 1.5%; P = 0.026) resulting in a freedom from reoperation of 97.4% vs 98.5%, respectively. Separate analysis for patients stratified by age revealed no difference in outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: In case of aortic root aneurysm, both valve-sparing operations and root replacement with a biologic composite conduit provide excellent outcomes. However, at mid-term follow-up the use of biologic composite conduit is associated with a higher risk of reoperation.
METHODS: From September 2002 to November 2015, 749 consecutive patients underwent either a valve-sparing operation or a root replacement with a biologic composite conduit at 2 institutions. Propensity score matching was used to compare similar cohorts of patients in the overall population and in the ≤ 55 and ≥ 65-year age groups.
RESULTS: Overall operative mortality was 0.4%, mean age 57.4 ± 14.3 years, 84.6% were male. Individuals in the biologic composite conduit group were older and had worse preoperative risk profiles [chronic pulmonary disease (5.5% vs 0.9%; P = 0.001), diabetes (6.4% vs 1.5%; P = 0.001) and NYHA > 2 (25.2% vs 5.2%; P < 0.001)]. Mean follow-up was 27.5 ± 28.4 months. In the unmatched population, there was no difference in in-hospital deaths (0 in the valve-sparing versus 3 in the biologic composite conduit group; P = 0.12). These findings were confirmed in the propensity-matched populations. During follow-up, more patients in the biologic composite conduit group underwent reoperation on the aortic valve (2.6% vs 1.5%; P = 0.026) resulting in a freedom from reoperation of 97.4% vs 98.5%, respectively. Separate analysis for patients stratified by age revealed no difference in outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: In case of aortic root aneurysm, both valve-sparing operations and root replacement with a biologic composite conduit provide excellent outcomes. However, at mid-term follow-up the use of biologic composite conduit is associated with a higher risk of reoperation.