The Annals of thoracic surgery · 2024
Aortic Annular Enlargement vs Isolated Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Matched Annulus.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Makkinejad Alexander, Monaghan Katelyn, Chen Sarah A, Wu Xiaoting, Ling Carol, Kim Karen, Fukuhara Shinichi, Patel Himanshu J, Pagani Francis, Deeb G Michael, Yang Bo
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: We aimed to determine the effect of aortic annular enlargement on the midterm outcomes of aortic valve replacement surgery by comparing patients with the same-sized (≤23 mm) native aortic annuli.
METHODS: From January 2011 to June 2022, 1328 patients underwent isolated aortic valve replacement-1163 without aortic annular enlargement (AVR group) and 165 with aortic annular enlargement (AVR+AAE group). Propensity score matching identified 112 pairs, controlling for native aortic annulus diameter, age, sex, diabetes, chronic lung disease, dialysis, ejection fraction, prior cardiac surgery, indication, hypertension, dyslipidemia, valve type, prior stroke, prior myocardial infarction, and case status.
RESULTS: Demographic and preoperative variables were similar, except body surface area was larger in the AVR+AAE group (2.1 m2 vs 1.9 m2). Median native aortic annulus diameter was 23 mm in both groups. Median prosthesis size was 25 in the AVR+AAE group and 23 in the AVR group. The AVR+AAE group had longer cardiopulmonary bypass (143 vs 111 minutes) and cross-clamp (115 vs 82 minutes) times. Incidences of perioperative complications, including operative mortality (1.8% AVR+AAE vs 3.6% AVR) were similar between groups. Survival at 6 years was 98% in the AVR+AAE group and 74% in the AVR group (P = .016). Aortic annular enlargement was an independent protective factor for midterm mortality, with a hazard ratio of 0.19 (P = .006). The rate of moderate/severe patient-prosthesis mismatch was 19% in the AVR+AAE group and 31% in the AVR group (P = .16).
CONCLUSIONS: Patients with small native aortic annuli (≤23 mm) undergoing isolated aortic valve replacement may benefit from aortic annular enlargement.
METHODS: From January 2011 to June 2022, 1328 patients underwent isolated aortic valve replacement-1163 without aortic annular enlargement (AVR group) and 165 with aortic annular enlargement (AVR+AAE group). Propensity score matching identified 112 pairs, controlling for native aortic annulus diameter, age, sex, diabetes, chronic lung disease, dialysis, ejection fraction, prior cardiac surgery, indication, hypertension, dyslipidemia, valve type, prior stroke, prior myocardial infarction, and case status.
RESULTS: Demographic and preoperative variables were similar, except body surface area was larger in the AVR+AAE group (2.1 m2 vs 1.9 m2). Median native aortic annulus diameter was 23 mm in both groups. Median prosthesis size was 25 in the AVR+AAE group and 23 in the AVR group. The AVR+AAE group had longer cardiopulmonary bypass (143 vs 111 minutes) and cross-clamp (115 vs 82 minutes) times. Incidences of perioperative complications, including operative mortality (1.8% AVR+AAE vs 3.6% AVR) were similar between groups. Survival at 6 years was 98% in the AVR+AAE group and 74% in the AVR group (P = .016). Aortic annular enlargement was an independent protective factor for midterm mortality, with a hazard ratio of 0.19 (P = .006). The rate of moderate/severe patient-prosthesis mismatch was 19% in the AVR+AAE group and 31% in the AVR group (P = .16).
CONCLUSIONS: Patients with small native aortic annuli (≤23 mm) undergoing isolated aortic valve replacement may benefit from aortic annular enlargement.