-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The known complications of prosthetic valve replacement in patients with an ascending aortic aneurysm and secondary aortic regurgitation who frequently have a morphologically normal aortic valve have prompted interest in valve-sparing aneurysm repair procedures. The aim of this study was to define the echocardiographic criteria for identifying suitable candidates for ascending aortic aneurysm repair that spares the aortic valve. We also examined the perioperative and intermediate-term results of this innovative procedure.
Fifteen patients underwent ascending aortic replacement with resuspension of the native valve within a vascular prosthesis and reimplantation of the coronary ostia. Echocardiography was performed preoperatively and intraoperatively, before discharge, and during follow-up. Thirteen patients had nondissecting aneurysms, and 2 patients had a Standford type A aortic dissection. The mean age of the patients was 48 +/- 18 years. Only patients with morphologically normal aortic leaflets and leaflets of similar size were selected.
There was one death perioperatively, and this was due to sepsis. The procedure failed in 1 patient, and a valved conduit was implanted during the same operation. In the 13 others the aortic annulus diameter was significantly reduced from 27.1 +/- 2.2 mm preoperatively to 22.2 +/- 1.9 mm postoperatively (p < 0.05). The severity of aortic insufficiency decreased from 2.9 +/- 0.7 to 0.6 +/- 0.4 (p < 0.05). The peak aortic gradient increased from 11.5 +/- 6.5 to 20.3 +/- 16 mm Hg. A slight increase in the aortic annulus diameter to 24.3 +/- 1.0 mm and normalization of the peak aortic gradient to 9.8 +/- 7.8 mm Hg were noted at follow-up. There was no significant increase in aortic insufficiency.
In selected patients undergoing ascending aortic aneurysm repair who have normal aortic leaflets but secondary aortic regurgitation, the native valve can be spared through this novel operation. The aortic annulus size is reduced significantly, thereby effectively eliminating hemodynamically significant aortic regurgitation. The intermediate-term results are promising, but the long-term durability of this type of repair needs to be determined.
The Annals of Thoracic Surgery 08/1995; 60(1):176-80. · 3.74 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Pulmonary autograft aortic valve replacement is the only technique for implantation of a biologic, vital and thus nondegenerating valve. The technique of root replacement overcomes problems of asymmetric aortic roots and reduces the risk of malalignment, but bears the risk of dilatation. We have performed pulmonary autograft aortic root replacement in 20 patients (mean age 22 years, range 5-38). Twelve presented with aortic incompetence, 3 with stenosis and 5 with combined defects. Initially roots were implanted just supraannularly with two running suture lines. As the neo-aortic roots gradually dilated, we started to implant autografts intraannulary, but still one valve dilated and aortic incompetence (AI) increased from grade I to II. Consequently the remaining aortic wall was wrapped around the new root and the composite subsequently was reinforced by a circular absorbable mesh. In addition, the aorta and pulmonary valve were exactly sized and the aortic root was reduced by commissuroplasty stitches up to 6 mm in diameter in seven cases. The ventricular size decreased in all patients 10 days after surgery, the left ventricular end-diastolic diameters (LVEDD) from 58 +/- 12 to 52 +/- 10 mm (P = 0.0002; paired t-test) and left ventricular end-systolic diameter (LVESD) from 41 +/- 12 to 36 +/- 10 mm (P = 0.008), but the contractility did not change significantly (fractional shortening from 31 +/- 9% to 30 +/- 9%). The diameter of the new aortic ring increased for the supraannular position but size matching and the intraannular valve position reduced the new ring size significantly (P = 0.001).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery 02/1993; 7(8):405-8. · 2.55 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Several minimally invasive approaches to the mitral valve have been described, including parasternal incision and right anterolateral thoracotomy.
Since September 1996, 58 patients underwent minimally invasive mitral valve surgery at our institution through a right anterolateral minithoractomy. Two different techniques were used for institution of cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and aortic clamping: in the Port-Access group (group A) patients had femoro-femoral cannulation with a special arterial cannula to introduce an endoaortic balloon clamp (n = 23). The second group (group B) of patients underwent femoro-femoral CPB as well in combination with a specially designed transthoracic aortic clamp (Chitwood technique, n = 35). Patients were assigned to either technique in a nonrandomized fashion. Demographics were similar in both groups.
In group A, 4 valves were replaced, 19 patients had mitral valve repair. In group B, 7 patients had valve replacement and 28 patients underwent mitral repair. Four patients in group A were converted to Chitwood technique due to endoclamp dysfunction. Operating time, CPB time, cross-clamp time, and postoperative blood loss were lower in group B (operating time 295 +/- 83 min vs. 236 +/- 63.9 min; CPB min 167.6 = 64.9 min vs. 137.6 +/- 38.2 min; cross-clamp time 105.9 +/- 51.7 min vs. 78.9 +/- 25.2 min; postoperative blood loss 584 +/- 428 mL vs. 323 +/- 209 mL [p < 0.05]). Clinical outcome regarding postoperative mechanical ventilatilation time, hospital stay and hospital mortality was not different between groups.
Minimally invasive mitral valve procedures via right anterolateral minithoracotomy, including complex valve repair, can be performed successfully using either technique. However, the Chitwood technique provides better intraoperative handling with shorter operation time and less postoperative blood loss. Additionally, costs of a procedure are less using the Chitwood technique compared to the Port-Access technique.
Journal of Cardiac Surgery 15(1):76-81. · 0.87 Impact Factor
