Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Division of Cardiovascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, Minn.
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014 Jan;147(1):344-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2012.09.098. Epub 2012 Dec 13.
A competent aortic valve is essential to providing effective left ventricular assist device support. We have adopted a practice of central aortic valve closure by placing a simple coaptation stitch at left ventricular assist device implantation in patients with significant aortic insufficiency. We conducted a follow-up study to evaluate the efficacy and durability of this procedure.
The study included patients who had undergone continuous flow left ventricular assist device implantation. The patients were divided into 2 groups, those who did not require any aortic procedure because the valve was competent and those who underwent central aortic valve closure for mild or greater aortic regurgitation. The clinical endpoints were mortality, progression or recurrence of aortic insufficiency, and reoperation for aortic valve pathologic features. Aortic insufficiency was measured qualitatively from mild to severe on a scale of 0 to 5.
A total of 123 patients received continuous flow left ventricular assist devices from February 2007 to August 2011. Of those, 18 (15%) underwent central aortic valve closure at left ventricular assist device implantation because of significant aortic insufficiency (1.8 ± 1.4) and 105 who did not (competent aortic valve, 0.15 ± 0.43; P < .01). At follow-up (median, 312 days; range, 0-1429 days), the mean aortic insufficiency score remained low for the patients with central aortic valve closure (0.27 ± 0.46) in contrast to those without central aortic valve closure who experienced aortic insufficiency progression (0.78 ± 0.89; P = .02). In addition, the proportion of patients with more than mild aortic insufficiency was significantly less in the central aortic valve closure group (0% vs 18%; P = .05). The patients in the central aortic valve closure group were significantly older and had a greater incidence of renal failure at baseline. The 30-day mortality was greater in the central aortic valve closure group, but the late survival was similar between the 2 groups. No reoperations were required for recurrent aortic insufficiency.
The results of our study have shown that repair of aortic insufficiency with a simple central coaptation stitch is effective and durable in left ventricular assist device-supported patients, with follow-up extending into 2 years. Although aortic insufficiency progressed over time in those with minimal native valve regurgitation initially, no such progression was noted in those with central aortic valve closure. Additional investigation is needed to evaluate whether prophylactic central aortic valve closure should be performed at left ventricular assist device implantation to avoid problematic aortic regurgitation developing over time, in particular in patients undergoing left ventricular assist device implantation for life-long (destination therapy) support.
有效的左心室辅助装置支持需要一个功能健全的主动脉瓣。我们在左心室辅助装置植入时采用了一种通过在主动脉瓣中部进行缝合来关闭主动脉瓣的方法,以治疗严重主动脉瓣关闭不全的患者。我们进行了一项随访研究,以评估该方法的疗效和耐久性。
该研究纳入了接受连续血流左心室辅助装置植入的患者。患者分为两组,一组为主动脉瓣功能正常,无需任何主动脉瓣手术;另一组为主动脉瓣轻-重度关闭不全患者,行主动脉瓣中部缝合关闭术。临床终点为死亡率、主动脉瓣关闭不全进展或复发以及主动脉瓣病变再次手术。主动脉瓣关闭不全的严重程度采用 0-5 级评分进行定性评估,从轻度到重度。
2007 年 2 月至 2011 年 8 月,共 123 例患者接受连续血流左心室辅助装置治疗。其中,18 例(15%)因严重主动脉瓣关闭不全(1.8±1.4)在左心室辅助装置植入时行主动脉瓣中部缝合关闭术,105 例主动脉瓣功能正常(0.15±0.43;P<0.01)。随访(中位数 312 天;范围 0-1429 天)时,主动脉瓣中部缝合关闭术组患者的主动脉瓣关闭不全评分仍较低(0.27±0.46),而主动脉瓣中部缝合关闭术组患者的主动脉瓣关闭不全进展(0.78±0.89;P=0.02)。此外,主动脉瓣中部缝合关闭术组主动脉瓣关闭不全程度大于轻度的患者比例明显低于主动脉瓣中部缝合关闭术组(0%比 18%;P=0.05)。主动脉瓣中部缝合关闭术组患者年龄较大,基线时肾功能衰竭发生率较高。主动脉瓣中部缝合关闭术组患者术后 30 天死亡率较高,但两组晚期生存率相似。无复发性主动脉瓣关闭不全需要再次手术。
我们的研究结果表明,用简单的主动脉瓣中部缝合修复术治疗左心室辅助装置支持患者的主动脉瓣关闭不全是有效和持久的,随访时间长达 2 年。尽管最初主动脉瓣关闭不全较轻的患者随着时间的推移主动脉瓣关闭不全逐渐加重,但主动脉瓣中部缝合关闭术组患者的主动脉瓣关闭不全无进展。需要进一步研究以评估在左心室辅助装置植入时预防性行主动脉瓣中部缝合关闭术是否可以避免随着时间的推移出现有问题的主动脉瓣关闭不全,尤其是在为终身(终末期心力衰竭)支持而进行左心室辅助装置植入的患者中。