Revisiting ascending aortic resection in the elective valve-sparing root replacement: assessing the benefits and necessity of hemiarch replacement at three centres†.

• Tác giả: Joseph Bavaria, Mikolaj Berezowski, Tim Berger, Martin Czerny, Nimesh D Desai, Nicholas Goel, Sankrit Kapoor, Joseph Kletzer, Maximillian Kreibich, Kendall Lawrence, Selim Mosbahi, Maria Nucera, Florian Schoenhoff, Matthias Siepe, Wilson Y Szeto, Victoria Werdecker, Murat Yildiz, Yu Zhao
• Ngôn ngữ: eng
• Ký hiệu phân loại: 305.568 +Alienated and excluded classes
• Thông tin xuất bản: Germany : European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery , 2025
• Bộ sưu tập: NCBI
• ID: 160536

Tóm tắt

 OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the indication and optimal timing for performing a hemiarch procedure in patients undergoing valve-sparing root replacement (VSRR). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study on 986 patients undergoing VSRR at three tertiary care centres. Inclusion criteria were all patients undergoing elective VSRR. Exclusion criteria were age <
 18 years, Stanford type A dissection, dissection in the arch, total aortic arch replacement or previous aortic arch replacement. We performed propensity score matching in a 1:1 ratio. The primary end-point is a composite outcome that includes mortality, aortic arch reintervention, new aortic dissection during follow-up and cerebrovascular incidents within the first 30 days. RESULTS: A total of 401 patients (41%) had a hemiarch replacement, while 585 (59%) did not. Root phenotype was present in 565 (57%). The mean follow-up time was 4.7 years (SD ± 4.6). In the matched population, there was no significant difference in the 10-year freedom from the composite outcome between the non-hemiarch and hemiarch groups (87.3% vs 85.0%, P >
  0.999). Similarly, no difference was found for aortic reinterventions (P = 0.13) or survival (P = 0.5). This was also true for patients with heritable thoracic aortic disease. However, in patients with a bicuspid aortic valve, the intervention rate was significantly higher in the hemiarch group (10.8% vs 0%, P = 0.016). There was no significant difference in the 30-day incidence of cerebrovascular accidents between the groups (5% vs 2.7% in the hemiarch group, P = 0.117). Only the distal ascending diameter showed a tendency with better outcome over 45 mm for the hemiarch procedure
  otherwise, we found no reliable cut-off values based on ascending length, diameter-to-height index or ascending length-to-height index. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings conclusively demonstrate that concomitant hemiarch replacement does not increase the perioperative risk in young patients undergoing VSRR. However, concomitant replacement does not seem to protect from aortic reinterventions during medium-term follow-up.