Surgical dilemma – spare or replace regurgitant aortic valve: Late comparative outcomes of two strategies

Abstract

Background

To evaluate different aortic root surgery techniques and their contemporary clinical outcomes in patients with regurgitant aortic valve and aortic root aneurysm.

Methods

The study consisted of 141 adult patients who underwent aortic valve reimplantation (David group = 73) or aortic valve replacement surgery (Bentall group = 68) for aortic valve regurgitation (AR) and dilatation of the aortic root at our institution within the same period (April 2004–October 2016). Kaplan–Meier method was used to estimate survival and other clinically relevant outcomes between the groups.

Results

The completeness of clinical follow-up was 100%, with a mean time of 8.0 ± 3.8 years. Thirty-day (in-hospital) mortality rates were equivalent between groups (1.3 and 1.5%, p = 1.0). The overall survival rates at 10 years were significantly better for the David group patients comparing to Bentall group patients (95.3 ± 2.6% vs 79.7 ± 6.8%; p = 0.04) with similar freedom from AV related reoperation (94.4 ± 2.7% vs 98.5 ± 1.5%; p = 0.2). Freedom from bleeding events at 10 years was 90.7 ± 3.6% for Bentall group patients and none were observed among David group patients (p = 0.01).

Conclusions

Aortic valve and root surgery can be performed with equivalent safety and efficacy using either valve-sparing (David procedure) or valve-replacing (Bentall procedure) techniques in selected patients. Furthermore, patients after the David procedure demonstrated significantly improved survival and low risk of bleeding in comparison to the Bentall procedure with an acceptable risk of reoperation at 10 years follow-up.