Impact of Aortic Root Enlargement on Patients Undergoing Aortic Valve Replacement.

BACKGROUND

Aortic root enlargement (ARE) can be an important adjunct for aortic valve replacement (AVR). This study compared outcomes of AVR with or without ARE.

METHODS

This was an observational study using an institutional database of AVRs from 2010 to 2020 comparing patients who underwent isolated AVR vs AVR with ARE (AVR+ARE). Kaplan-Meier survival estimation and Cox regression were performed.

RESULTS

Of 2371 patients, 2240 (94.5%) underwent isolated AVR and 131 (5.5%) underwent AVR+ARE. Patients who underwent AVR+ARE were more likely to be women and to be younger than those who underwent isolated AVR. Prosthesis size was smaller in patients undergoing AVR+ARE (23 mm [interquartile range {IQR}, 21-25] vs 25 mm [IQR, 23-25], P < .001), but indexed effective orifice area did not differ between the 2 groups. Operative mortality was comparable for AVR (2.3%) and AVR+ARE (3.8%, P = .28). Patients who underwent AVR+ARE had a longer length of stay (7 days [IQR, 6-13] vs 6 days [IQR 5-10], P < .001), were more likely to have acute kidney injury (6.1% vs 2.5%, P = .01), were more likely to require blood product transfusions (40.5% vs 27.6%, P < .001), and were more likely to require prolonged ventilation > 24 hours (16.0% vs 6.8%, P < .001). Rates of stroke, atrial fibrillation, permanent pacemaker, and reoperation were comparable between groups. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates were similar, and on multivariable regression AVR+ARE was not associated with an increased hazard of death as compared with AVR (hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 0.81-1.46; P = .59).

CONCLUSIONS

ARE can be safely performed with isolated AVR and should be considered for patients with small annuli to avoid prosthesis-patient mismatch.