Original ArticleThe Aortic Root Replacement Procedure: 12-year Experience from the Australian and New Zealand Society of Cardiac and Thoracic Surgeons Database
Introduction
Approximately 4.5 per 100,000 people develop a thoracic aortic aneurysm, of which 60% predominantly affects the supravalvular aorta (aortic root and/or ascending thoracic aorta) [1]. The patient with a large aortic aneurysm faces disease progression and an increased risk of dissection or rupture [2], and early surgical intervention is recommended.
In 1968 Bentall and de Bono developed the composite aortic valve and root replacement with reimplantation of the coronary arteries to tackle thoracic aortic aneurysms [3]. Since then there have been several modifications made to this procedure, the notable one being the creation of aortic tissue buttons around the coronary ostia and extensive mobilisation of the proximal ends of the coronary arteries [4]. Although originally designed for supravalvular aortic aneurysms, the indications for the aortic root replacement procedure (ARR) have expanded [5], [6], [7].
The type of replacement valve, mechanical or biological, depends on surgeon and patient preference. Younger patients (<50 years old) are more likely to receive a mechanical valve due to the increased rate of deterioration of biological valves in this age group, requiring a reoperation. Patients over the age of 70 years are likely to benefit most from a biological valve, which has a low probability of rapid structural deterioration in older patients and a lower rate of thromboembolism, haemorrhage and endocarditis [8], [9]. However, patients between 50 and 70 years old are often offered a choice between a mechanical valve and a biological valve depending on their surgical risk, presence of comorbidities and desired quality of life [10].
Valve-sparing aortic reconstruction surgeries (VSARR) such as the David ‘reimplantation’ procedure and the Yacoub ‘remodelling’ procedure have been developed over the last two decades to overcome the shortcomings of prosthetic aortic valves [11]. These procedures have the added benefit of retaining the superior functionality and haemodynamics of the native aortic valve, and as such are usually only performed if the aortic valve is competent or with minimal deformity [10]. However, ARR is still the surgery of choice in any condition where the integrity of the aortic valve is compromised [12].
We present here the Australian experience with ARR from the Australian and New Zealand Society of Cardiac and Thoracic Surgeons [13] database.
Section snippets
Methods
Ethics approval for this study was granted by the Human Research Ethics Committee, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital Zone.
Results
The mean age of the patients was 56.0 ± 15.2 years (range 17-101) with 3% (n = 29) aged 80 years and above. Other preoperative and intraoperative characteristics are summarised in Table 1. The replacement valve distribution data are shown in Table 2, while the different aortic pathologies are tabulated in Table 3.
The overall 30-day mortality was 5.9% (Table 3). Mortality in elective surgeries was 3.6% compared to 12.7% in non-elective surgeries. Among the different aortic pathologies, the mortality
Discussion
The ARR procedure is well-recognised as the surgical treatment for aortic aneurysmal disease, especially with aortic valve disease. Depending on the aortopathy and extent of aortic involvement, the composite valve graft (CVG) is designed to include the aortic root, ascending aorta and the proximal arch. Over the years this procedure has evolved continuously and has been subjected to various modifications with increasing understanding of different aortic root pathologies [4], [5], [6], [7]. To
Limitations
This is an analysis of prospectively collected data in the ANZSCTS database and thus has limitations applicable to registry studies. All database studies have an inherent treatment bias. There is no established standard selection criteria for the patients that undergo the ARR procedure in Australia and patient selection is based on surgeon preference. The ANZSCTS database, like all large databases, is subject to sampling error and missing data. The database has been developing since 2001 with
Conclusion
Aortic root replacement in the Australian population can be performed with acceptable 30-day mortality and morbidity as well as long-term survival. Acute type A aortic dissection, cardiogenic shock, concomitant CABG and atrial arrhythma proved to be significant risk factors for early mortality.
Acknowledgements
The Australian and New Zealand Society of Cardiac and Thoracic Surgeons [13] National Cardiac Surgery Database Program is funded by the Department of Health, Victoria, and the Health Administration Corporation (GMCT) and the Clinical Excellence Commission (CEC), NSW, and funding from individual Units.
The following investigators, data managers, and institutions participated in the ANZSCTS Database: Alfred Hospital: Pick A, Duncan J; Austin Hospital: Seevanayagam S, Shaw M; Cabrini Health:
References (31)
- et al.
Long-term survival after the Bentall procedure in 206 patients with bicuspid aortic valve
The Annals of Thoracic Surgery
(2007) - et al.
Aortic root reconstruction with a bioprosthetic valved conduit: a consecutive series of 275 procedures
The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
(2007) - et al.
The Bentall procedure: Is it the gold standard?. A series of 597 consecutive cases
The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
(2010) - et al.
Surgical treatment of the dilated ascending aorta: when and how?
The Annals of Thoracic Surgery
(1999) - et al.
A note on quantifying follow-up in studies of failure time
Controlled Clinical Trials
(1996) - et al.
Aortic root replacement with composite valve graft
Ann Thorac Surg
(2003) - et al.
Replacement of the Aortic Root with a Composite Valve-Graft Conduit: Risk Factor Analysis in 246 Consecutive Patients. Heart
Lung and Circulation
(2014) - et al.
Aortic Root Replacement for Ascending Aortic Disease: A 10 Year Review. Heart
Lung and Circulation
(2013) - et al.
2010 ACCF/AHA/AATS/ACR/ASA/SCA/SCAI/SIR/STS/SVM Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Thoracic Aortic Disease
Journal of the American College of Cardiology
(2010) - et al.
Contemporary results of surgery in acute type A aortic dissection: The International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection experience
The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
(2005)
Anaortic techniques reduce neurological morbidity after off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery
Heart, Lung and Circulation
Early and late outcome after aortic root replacement with a mechanical valve prosthesis in a series of 528 patients
The Annals of Thoracic Surgery
The Freestyle Aortic Bioprosthesis: A Systematic Review
Heart, Lung and Circulation
Long-term results of aortic root replacement: 15 years’ experience
Annals of Thoracic Surgery
Dilation of the thoracic aorta: medical and surgical management
Heart (British Cardiac Society)
Cited by (11)
Structural abnormalities after aortic root replacement with stentless xenograft
2023, Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular SurgerySurvival after aortic root replacement with a stentless xenograft is determined by patient characteristics
2022, Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular SurgeryCitation Excerpt :Our findings reflect a heterogenous cohort of diverse and high-risk patients, represented by the various indication groups, most of which are characterized by well known risk factors for adverse outcome, including nonelective, reoperative, concomitant, and endocarditis surgery.9-14 In previously reported mixed aortic root replacement cohorts, nonelective surgery accounted for 4%-28% of included cases compared with 46% in the current study, and reoperative surgery accounted for 4%-27% of cases compared with 34% in our study.2,9-12,15-32 Also, complex endocarditis was our second most common indication, and 70% of these patients had PVE.
Valve-sparing root replacement and composite valve graft replacement in patients with aortic regurgitation: From the Japan Cardiovascular Surgery Database
2019, Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular SurgeryCitation Excerpt :VSRR seems an ideal solution to eliminate the need for anticoagulation treatment and to reduce future risks of reoperations compared with CVG-B replacement, although the follow-up periods of previous studies are still not sufficiently long and the mechanical Bentall procedure is still superior in terms of reoperation.9 Recent meta-analyses and large nationwide databases have revealed that the postoperative mortality rate after the Bentall procedure is around 6%, which is greater than those after conventional cardiac operations.10-12 Common risk factors for early mortality were shown to be advanced age, urgent/emergent operation, concomitant mitral/coronary disease, and longer procedure time.13-17
The Button Bentall Procedure
2018, Operative Techniques in Thoracic and Cardiovascular SurgeryIs perioperative fast-track management the future of proximal aortic repair?
2023, European Journal of Cardio-thoracic Surgery