[show abstract][hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Aortic homografts offer many advantages over prosthetic valves. However, homograft dysfunction due to degeneration or infection may lead to reoperation. Aortic valve replacement in patients who have undergone previous aortic root replacement with an aortic homograft remains a technical challenge. To assess reoperation events a retrospective review was conducted.
From January 2000 to October 2006, 20 consecutive patients (38.8+/-14.9 years old) underwent repeat surgery for aortic homograft failure.
Reoperation was performed 7.2+/-3.5 years after implantation of the aortic homograft as a root. Indication was homograft degeneration (n=18 [90%]) and endocarditis (n=2 [10%]). In patients with major homograft wall calcifications or endocarditis, nine aortic root reconstructions were performed (Bentall procedure n=7; homograft implantation n=2). Each homograft was dissected with electrical cauterization and removed 'en-bloc' sparing the coronary buttons. In case of flexible homograft wall, stented prostheses (mechanical n=10, bioprosthesis n=1) were implanted along the homograft annulus. Additional procedures consisted of mitral valve replacements (n=8), tricuspid repairs (n=4), Konno procedure (n=1) and coronary bypass (n=5). Perioperative complications occurred in seven (35%) patients: sternal re-entry accident (n=2); reoperations for mediastinitis (n=1) or bleeding (n=2); renal insufficiency (n=1); total heart block (n=1). No association was found between operative procedures and postoperative complications (Fisher's exact test). Two patients (10%) died from multiorgan failure in the early postoperative period. In total, 94.4% of the survivors remained free from reoperation at 74 months.
Reoperation on patients with an aortic homograft as a root presents a relatively high perioperative morbidity. The surgical strategy depends on the degree of homograft wall calcification.
European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery 07/2008; 33(6):989-94. · 2.67 Impact Factor
[show abstract][hide abstract] ABSTRACT: This article describes a novel interactive method for quantitative evaluation of calcium deposits in the aortic valve by means of electron beam tomography data fusion technique.
The technique relied on the use of hierarchic 3-dimensional free-form volume registration with fast global optimization between normally acquired and contrast-enhanced electron beam tomographic volume. A total of 66 contrast-enhanced electron beam tomographic scans of the aortic root were performed in 27 patients, 10 with native aortic valve disease (group A) and 17 from a prospective randomized trial of aortic root replacement (group B, 9 Freestyle grafts [Medtronic, Inc, Minneapolis, Minn] and 8 homografts). To validate the in vivo electron beam tomographic measurements, 5 patients from group A underwent electron beam tomographic scans before the operation and then had their own valves, explanted at the time of surgery, analyzed for calcium quantification by ex vivo electron beam tomography.
In group A, the mean (+/- SE) calcification score was 6560 +/- 2388, which correlated with peak gradients measured at echocardiography ( r = 0.93, P = .02). In group B, the mean (+/- SE) calcification score was 168 +/- 27, showing a tendency toward a lower calcification for Freestyle valves than for homografts at 2 years after implantation ( P = .052). A mean variability of 6% was found between in vivo electron beam tomographic scores of calcification and those measured on valve specimens after explantation.
We describe a novel method to characterize the degree and location of calcification in both native valves and postoperative valve implants. The technique may be useful in the management of patients with aortic valve disease and has potential as a screening tool for high-risk patients to diagnose early valve calcification and possibly institute corrective measures.
Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 08/2005; 130(1):41-7. · 3.53 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.