Biological solutions to aortic root replacement: valve-sparing versus bioprosthetic conduit‡.

OBJECTIVES

Valve-sparing operations and root replacement with a biologic composite conduit are viable options in aortic root aneurysm. This study was conceived to compare the early and mid-term results of these 2 procedures.

METHODS

From September 2002 to November 2015, 749 consecutive patients underwent either a valve-sparing operation or a root replacement with a biologic composite conduit at 2 institutions. Propensity score matching was used to compare similar cohorts of patients in the overall population and in the ≤ 55 and ≥ 65-year age groups.

RESULTS

Overall operative mortality was 0.4%, mean age 57.4 ± 14.3 years, 84.6% were male. Individuals in the biologic composite conduit group were older and had worse preoperative risk profiles [chronic pulmonary disease (5.5% vs 0.9%; P  = 0.001), diabetes (6.4% vs 1.5%; P  = 0.001) and NYHA > 2 (25.2% vs 5.2%; P  < 0.001)]. Mean follow-up was 27.5 ± 28.4 months. In the unmatched population, there was no difference in in-hospital deaths (0 in the valve-sparing versus 3 in the biologic composite conduit group; P  = 0.12). These findings were confirmed in the propensity-matched populations. During follow-up, more patients in the biologic composite conduit group underwent reoperation on the aortic valve (2.6% vs 1.5%; P  = 0.026) resulting in a freedom from reoperation of 97.4% vs 98.5%, respectively. Separate analysis for patients stratified by age revealed no difference in outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

In case of aortic root aneurysm, both valve-sparing operations and root replacement with a biologic composite conduit provide excellent outcomes. However, at mid-term follow-up the use of biologic composite conduit is associated with a higher risk of reoperation.