Valve-sparing root replacement and composite valve graft replacement in patients with aortic regurgitation: From the Japan Cardiovascular Surgery Database.

OBJECTIVES

The advantage of valve-sparing root replacement (VSRR) over aortic root replacement with a composite valve graft (CVG) remains unclear. We compared these 2 procedures with regard to early outcomes with propensity score matching using the Japan Cardiovascular Surgery Database.

METHODS

Of 5303 patients from the Japan Cardiovascular Surgery Database who had undergone aortic root replacement in 2008 to 2017, emergent/urgent or redo cases and those with infective endocarditis or aortic stenosis were excluded (included n = 3841). Two propensity score-matched groups treated with VSRR or CVG replacement (n = 1164 each) were established.

RESULTS

Overall, VSRR was more frequently performed for younger patients with Marfan syndrome with lower operative risk and aortic regurgitation grade compared with CVG replacement. After matching, a weaker but similar trend still existed in baseline characteristics. Although more concomitant procedures were performed in the CVG group, myocardial ischemia and cardiopulmonary bypass time was significantly longer in the VSRR group (median, 193 and 245 minutes) than the CVG group (172 and 223 minutes, both P < .01). The CVG group was associated with a significantly greater incidence of postoperative stroke (2.5% vs 1.1%, P = .01) and prolonged ventilation >72 hours (7.0% vs 4.6%, P = .02). In-hospital mortality rates were significantly greater in the CVG group (1.8%) than the VSRR group (0.8%, P = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

In overall Japanese institutions, VSRR was more frequently performed for patients at low risk and was associated with better morbidity and mortality rates than CVG replacement. After matching, VSRR was also associated with better morbidity and mortality rates despite longer procedure time.