Rahnavardi Mohammad, Yan Tristan D, Bannon Paul G, Wilson Michael K
Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Sydney, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2011 Aug;13(2):189-97. doi: 10.1510/icvts.2011.267401. Epub 2011 May 13.
A best evidence topic was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was whether the reimplantation (David) technique or the remodeling (Yacoub) technique provides the optimum event free survival in patients with an aortic root aneurysm suitable for an aortic valve-sparing operation. In total, 392 papers were found using the reported search criteria, of which 14 papers provided the best evidence to answer the clinical question. A total of 1338 patients (Yacoub technique in 606 and David technique in 732) from 13 centres were included. In most series, cardiopulmonary bypass time and aortic cross-clamp time were longer for the David technique compared to the Yacoub technique. Early mortality was comparable between the two techniques (0-6.9% for the Yacoub technique and 0-6% for the David technique). There is a tendency for a higher freedom from significant long-term aortic insufficiency in the David group than the Yacoub group, which does not necessarily result in a higher reoperation rate in the Yacoub group. In the largest series reported, freedom from a moderate-to-severe aortic insufficiency at 12 years was 82.6 ± 6.2% in the Yacoub and 91.0 ± 3.8% in the David group (P=0.035). Freedom from reoperation at the same time point was 90.4 ± 4.7% in the Yacoub group and 97.4 ± 2.2% in the David group (P=0.09). In another series, freedom from reoperation at a follow-up time of about four years was 89 ± 4% in the Yacoub group and 98 ± 2% in the David group. Although some authors merely preferred the Yacoub technique for a bicuspid aortic valve, the accumulated evidence in the current review indicates comparable results for both techniques in a bicuspid aortic valve. Current evidence is in favour of the David rather than the Yacoub technique in pathologies such as Marfan syndrome, acute type A aortic dissection, and excessive annular dilatation that may impair aortic root integrity. Careful selection of patients for each technique and successful restoration of normal cusp geometry are the keys to success in aortic valve-sparing operations.
根据结构化方案撰写了一篇最佳证据主题。所探讨的问题是,对于适合保留主动脉瓣手术的主动脉根部瘤患者,再植入(大卫)技术或重塑(亚库布)技术是否能提供最佳的无事件生存期。使用报告的检索标准共找到392篇论文,其中14篇论文提供了回答该临床问题的最佳证据。纳入了来自13个中心的总共1338例患者(606例采用亚库布技术,732例采用大卫技术)。在大多数系列研究中,与亚库布技术相比,大卫技术的体外循环时间和主动脉阻断时间更长。两种技术的早期死亡率相当(亚库布技术为0 - 6.9%,大卫技术为0 - 6%)。大卫组显著长期主动脉瓣关闭不全的发生率有高于亚库布组的趋势,但这并不一定会导致亚库布组有更高的再次手术率。在报告的最大系列研究中,亚库布组12年时中重度主动脉瓣关闭不全的发生率为82.6 ± 6.2%,大卫组为91.0 ± 3.8%(P = 0.035)。同一时间点的再次手术率,亚库布组为90.4 ± 4.7%,大卫组为97.4 ± 2.2%(P = 0.09)。在另一个系列研究中,随访约四年时的再次手术率,亚库布组为89 ± 4%,大卫组为98 ± 2%。尽管一些作者仅更倾向于对二叶式主动脉瓣采用亚库布技术,但当前综述中积累的证据表明,对于二叶式主动脉瓣,两种技术的结果相当。对于诸如马凡综合征、急性A型主动脉夹层和可能损害主动脉根部完整性的过度瓣环扩张等病变,当前证据支持采用大卫技术而非亚库布技术。为每种技术仔细挑选患者并成功恢复正常瓣叶形态是保留主动脉瓣手术成功的关键。