Jassar Arminder S, Desai Nimesh D, Kobrin Dale, Pochettino Alberto, Vallabhajosyula Prashanth, Milewski Rita K, McCarthy Fenton, Maniaci Jon, Szeto Wilson Y, Bavaria Joseph E
Division of Cardiovascular Surgery, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Division of Cardiovascular Surgery, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Ann Thorac Surg. 2015 May;99(5):1601-8; discussion 1608-9. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2014.12.038. Epub 2015 Mar 6.
Aortic reoperations are technically challenging. This study evaluated outcomes after "true" redo root replacement (previous full root replacement) stratified by cause of prosthesis failure.
Data were compared for 793 patients who underwent a first-time sternotomy (de novo group) and 120 patients who had previously undergone full aortic root replacement (redo group), of which 76 underwent reoperation due to structural valve deterioration (degenerative group), and 44 due to endocarditis (infection group).
Overall mortality was 4% (n = 28) in the de novo group and 5% (n = 6) in the redo group (p = 0.43) (degenerative group, 3%, infection group, 9%; p = 0.19). The infection group had an increased incidence of renal failure, sternal infection, prolonged ventilation, reoperation for bleeding, multisystem failure, and sepsis, and an increased hospital length of stay. The degenerative group and the de novo group had a similar risk of perioperative death and major complications. The 5-year survival was 86.3% ± 1.3% for the de novo group and 77.3% ± 4.6% for the redo group (p ≤ 0.01; degenerative, 86.3% ± 5%; infection, 65.3% ± 7.7%; p < 0.01; p = 0.98 for de novo vs degenerative). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that reoperation for degenerative failure did not increase the risk of perioperative or late death.
Redo aortic root replacement can be performed with low perioperative morbidity and death. The presence of infection increases the risk of complications and worsens survival. However, redo root replacement for degenerative failure can be performed with similar short-term complication risk and midterm survival as de novo root replacement.
主动脉再次手术在技术上具有挑战性。本研究评估了“真正的”再次根部置换(先前进行过全根部置换)术后的结局,并根据人工瓣膜失败的原因进行了分层。
比较了793例行首次胸骨切开术患者(初治组)和120例先前接受过全主动脉根部置换患者(再次手术组)的数据,其中76例因结构性瓣膜退变而接受再次手术(退变组),44例因心内膜炎而接受再次手术(感染组)。
初治组的总体死亡率为4%(n = 28),再次手术组为5%(n = 6)(p = 0.43)(退变组为3%,感染组为9%;p = 0.19)。感染组肾衰竭、胸骨感染、通气时间延长、再次手术止血、多系统衰竭和脓毒症的发生率增加,住院时间延长。退变组和初治组围手术期死亡和主要并发症的风险相似。初治组的5年生存率为86.3%±1.3%,再次手术组为77.3%±4.6%(p≤0.01;退变组为86.3%±5%,感染组为65.3%±7.7%;p<0.01;初治组与退变组比较,p = 0.98)。多变量分析表明,因退变失败而进行再次手术并未增加围手术期或晚期死亡的风险。
再次主动脉根部置换术可在低围手术期发病率和死亡率的情况下进行。感染的存在会增加并发症风险并使生存率降低。然而,因退变失败而进行的再次根部置换术与初次根部置换术相比,具有相似的短期并发症风险和中期生存率。