The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2013
Management of dilated ascending aorta during aortic valve replacement: valve replacement alone versus aorta wrapping versus aorta replacement.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Lee Seung Hyun, Kim Joon Bum, Kim Dong Hee, Jung Sung-Ho, Choo Suk Jung, Chung Cheol Hyun, Lee Jae Won
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: The optimal management of dilated ascending aorta during aortic valve replacement (AVR) remains controversial. This study compared the outcomes among 3 different managements (AVR alone, aorta wrapping, and aorta replacement) for the dilated ascending aorta.
METHODS: The study enrolled 499 consecutive non-Marfan patients undergoing AVR in the presence of the ascending aorta dilatation (40 to 55 mm). We evaluated rates of death and aortic events; in addition, we evaluated the aortic expansion rate by serial echocardiography.
RESULTS: The surgery involved AVR alone (n = 362), aorta wrapping (n = 67), or aorta replacement (n = 70). Early mortality occurred in 1.2% (n = 6, P = .61). Throughout 1590.0 patient-years of follow-up, 47 deaths occurred. The 5-year survival rates were 90.1% ± 2.0%, 91.8% ± 3.5%, and 82.2% ± 7.5% in the AVR alone, aorta wrapping, and aorta replacement groups, respectively (P = .64). One aortic event (acute type A dissection) occurred in the AVR alone group. For the AVR alone group, the median aortic expansion rate was -0.6 mm/y (interquartile range, -3.2 to 0.6 mm/y). The aortic expansion rates were affected neither by the morphology of aortic valves (bicuspid vs tricuspid; P = .10) nor by the initial aorta diameter (γ = -0.31, P = .61). Clinically relevant aortic expansion (≥5 mm/y) was observed only in 5 patients; of these patients, 2 showed the aortic diameter of 60 mm or greater at the end of follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared with concomitant aortic wrapping or replacement, AVR alone achieved similar clinical outcomes, showing considerably low risks of adverse aortic events or relevant aortic expansion in dilated ascending aorta. These findings argue against routine aortic replacement at the time of AVR.
METHODS: The study enrolled 499 consecutive non-Marfan patients undergoing AVR in the presence of the ascending aorta dilatation (40 to 55 mm). We evaluated rates of death and aortic events; in addition, we evaluated the aortic expansion rate by serial echocardiography.
RESULTS: The surgery involved AVR alone (n = 362), aorta wrapping (n = 67), or aorta replacement (n = 70). Early mortality occurred in 1.2% (n = 6, P = .61). Throughout 1590.0 patient-years of follow-up, 47 deaths occurred. The 5-year survival rates were 90.1% ± 2.0%, 91.8% ± 3.5%, and 82.2% ± 7.5% in the AVR alone, aorta wrapping, and aorta replacement groups, respectively (P = .64). One aortic event (acute type A dissection) occurred in the AVR alone group. For the AVR alone group, the median aortic expansion rate was -0.6 mm/y (interquartile range, -3.2 to 0.6 mm/y). The aortic expansion rates were affected neither by the morphology of aortic valves (bicuspid vs tricuspid; P = .10) nor by the initial aorta diameter (γ = -0.31, P = .61). Clinically relevant aortic expansion (≥5 mm/y) was observed only in 5 patients; of these patients, 2 showed the aortic diameter of 60 mm or greater at the end of follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared with concomitant aortic wrapping or replacement, AVR alone achieved similar clinical outcomes, showing considerably low risks of adverse aortic events or relevant aortic expansion in dilated ascending aorta. These findings argue against routine aortic replacement at the time of AVR.