True redo-aortic root replacement versus root replacement after any previous surgery.

OBJECTIVE

The impact of previous aortic root replacement (True-Redo) versus any previous operation (Any-Redo) on outcomes after reoperative aortic root replacement (redo-ROOT) is largely unknown. In this first multi-institutional study, the clinical impact True-Redo versus Any-Redo in the setting of redo-ROOT was reviewed.

METHODS

From 2004 to 2021, 822 patients underwent redo-ROOT at 2 major academic centers: 638 Any-Redo and 184 True-Redo. Matching based on preoperative demographics and concomitant operations resulted in 174 matched pairs. An independent risk factor analysis was performed to determine risk factors for early and late mortality.

RESULTS

Patients in the True-Redo group were younger, at 49.9 ± 15.1 versus 55.3 ± 14.7 years,  < .001. Concomitant operations were largely similar between the 2 groups,  > .05. Median cardiopulmonary bypass time ( < .001) and aortic crossclamp time ( = .03) were longer for True-Redo group. In-hospital mortality was 13% (109) and was without significant difference between groups,  = .41. Ten-year survival was 78% versus 76% for True-Redo versus Any-Redo groups respectively,  = .7. Landmark survival analysis at 4 years' postoperatively on the matched groups found that patients in the True-Redo group had improved survival outcomes ( = .046). Risk factors of in-hospital mortality consisted of older age ( < .0001), lower ejection fraction ( = .02), and male patient ( = .0003).

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical outcomes following redo-ROOT are excellent. Performance of a True-Redo-ROOT does not result in worse in-hospital morbidity or mortality and has improved survival benefit at midterm follow-up when compared with patients in the Any-Redo group. The decision to perform a redo-ROOT must be taken seriously and must be individualized in a patient-specific manner for optimal outcomes.