Cargando…

Aortic Root Replacement Surgery—A Center Experience with Biological Valve Prostheses

Objective: Outcomes after surgical aortic root replacement using different valved conduits are rarely reported. The present study shows the experience of a single center with the use of the partially biological LABCOR (LC) conduit and the fully biological BioIntegral (BI) conduit. Special attention...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Salem, Mohamed, Boehme, Maximilian, Friedrich, Christine, Ernst, Markus, Puehler, Thomas, Lutter, Georg, Schoeneich, Felix, Haneya, Assad, Cremer, Jochen, Schoettler, Jan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10056309/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36975871
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcdd10030107
_version_ 1785016090288455680
author Salem, Mohamed
Boehme, Maximilian
Friedrich, Christine
Ernst, Markus
Puehler, Thomas
Lutter, Georg
Schoeneich, Felix
Haneya, Assad
Cremer, Jochen
Schoettler, Jan
author_facet Salem, Mohamed
Boehme, Maximilian
Friedrich, Christine
Ernst, Markus
Puehler, Thomas
Lutter, Georg
Schoeneich, Felix
Haneya, Assad
Cremer, Jochen
Schoettler, Jan
author_sort Salem, Mohamed
collection PubMed
description Objective: Outcomes after surgical aortic root replacement using different valved conduits are rarely reported. The present study shows the experience of a single center with the use of the partially biological LABCOR (LC) conduit and the fully biological BioIntegral (BI) conduit. Special attention was paid to preoperative endocarditis. Methods: All 266 patients who underwent aortic root replacement by an LC conduit (n = 193) or a BI conduit (n = 73) between 01/01/2014 and 31/12/2020 were studied retrospectively. Dependency on an extracorporeal life support system preoperatively and congenital heart disease were exclusion criteria. For patients with (n = 67) and without (n = 199) preoperative endocarditis subanalyses were made. Results: Patients treated with a BI conduit were more likely to have diabetes mellitus (21.9 vs. 6.7%, p < 0.001), previous cardiac surgery (86.3 vs. 16.6%; p < 0.001), permanent pacemaker (21.9 vs. 2.1%; p < 0.001), and had a higher EuroSCORE II (14.9 vs. 4.1%; p < 0.001). The BI conduit was used more frequently for prosthetic endocarditis (75.3 vs. 3.6%; <0.001), and the LC conduit was used predominantly for ascending aortic aneurysms (80.3 vs. 41.1%; <0.001) and Stanford type A aortic dissections (24.9 vs. 9.6%; p = 0.006). The LC conduit was used more often for elective (61.7 vs. 47.9%; p = 0.043) and emergency (27.5 vs. 15.1%; p = 0–035) surgeries, and the BI conduit for urgent surgeries (37.0 vs. 10.9%; p < 0.001). Conduit sizes did not differ significantly, with a median of 25 mm in each case. Surgical times were longer in the BI group. In the LC group, coronary artery bypass grafting and proximal or total replacement of the aortic arch were combined more frequently, whereas in the BI group, partial replacement of the aortic arch were combined. In the BI group, ICU length of stay and duration of ventilation were longer, and rates of tracheostomy and atrioventricular block, pacemaker dependence, dialysis, and 30-day mortality were higher. Atrial fibrillation occurred more frequently in the LC group. Follow-up time was longer and rates of stroke and cardiac death were less frequent in the LC group. Postoperative echocardiographic findings at follow-up were not significantly different between conduits. Survival of LC patients was better than that of BI patients. In the subanalysis of patients with preoperative endocarditis, significant differences between the used conduits were found with respect to previous cardiac surgery, EuroSCORE II, aortic valve and prosthesis endocarditis, elective operation, duration of operation, and proximal aortic arch replacement. For patients without preoperative endocarditis, significant differences were observed concerning previous cardiac surgery, pacemaker implantation history, duration of procedure, and bypass time. The Kaplan–Meier curves for the subanalyses showed no significant differences between the used conduits. Conclusions: Both biological conduits studied here are equally suitable in principle for complete replacement of the aortic root in all aortic root pathologies. The BI conduit is often used in bail-out situations, especially in severe endocarditis, without being able to show a clinical advantage over the LC conduit in this context.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10056309
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-100563092023-03-30 Aortic Root Replacement Surgery—A Center Experience with Biological Valve Prostheses Salem, Mohamed Boehme, Maximilian Friedrich, Christine Ernst, Markus Puehler, Thomas Lutter, Georg Schoeneich, Felix Haneya, Assad Cremer, Jochen Schoettler, Jan J Cardiovasc Dev Dis Article Objective: Outcomes after surgical aortic root replacement using different valved conduits are rarely reported. The present study shows the experience of a single center with the use of the partially biological LABCOR (LC) conduit and the fully biological BioIntegral (BI) conduit. Special attention was paid to preoperative endocarditis. Methods: All 266 patients who underwent aortic root replacement by an LC conduit (n = 193) or a BI conduit (n = 73) between 01/01/2014 and 31/12/2020 were studied retrospectively. Dependency on an extracorporeal life support system preoperatively and congenital heart disease were exclusion criteria. For patients with (n = 67) and without (n = 199) preoperative endocarditis subanalyses were made. Results: Patients treated with a BI conduit were more likely to have diabetes mellitus (21.9 vs. 6.7%, p < 0.001), previous cardiac surgery (86.3 vs. 16.6%; p < 0.001), permanent pacemaker (21.9 vs. 2.1%; p < 0.001), and had a higher EuroSCORE II (14.9 vs. 4.1%; p < 0.001). The BI conduit was used more frequently for prosthetic endocarditis (75.3 vs. 3.6%; <0.001), and the LC conduit was used predominantly for ascending aortic aneurysms (80.3 vs. 41.1%; <0.001) and Stanford type A aortic dissections (24.9 vs. 9.6%; p = 0.006). The LC conduit was used more often for elective (61.7 vs. 47.9%; p = 0.043) and emergency (27.5 vs. 15.1%; p = 0–035) surgeries, and the BI conduit for urgent surgeries (37.0 vs. 10.9%; p < 0.001). Conduit sizes did not differ significantly, with a median of 25 mm in each case. Surgical times were longer in the BI group. In the LC group, coronary artery bypass grafting and proximal or total replacement of the aortic arch were combined more frequently, whereas in the BI group, partial replacement of the aortic arch were combined. In the BI group, ICU length of stay and duration of ventilation were longer, and rates of tracheostomy and atrioventricular block, pacemaker dependence, dialysis, and 30-day mortality were higher. Atrial fibrillation occurred more frequently in the LC group. Follow-up time was longer and rates of stroke and cardiac death were less frequent in the LC group. Postoperative echocardiographic findings at follow-up were not significantly different between conduits. Survival of LC patients was better than that of BI patients. In the subanalysis of patients with preoperative endocarditis, significant differences between the used conduits were found with respect to previous cardiac surgery, EuroSCORE II, aortic valve and prosthesis endocarditis, elective operation, duration of operation, and proximal aortic arch replacement. For patients without preoperative endocarditis, significant differences were observed concerning previous cardiac surgery, pacemaker implantation history, duration of procedure, and bypass time. The Kaplan–Meier curves for the subanalyses showed no significant differences between the used conduits. Conclusions: Both biological conduits studied here are equally suitable in principle for complete replacement of the aortic root in all aortic root pathologies. The BI conduit is often used in bail-out situations, especially in severe endocarditis, without being able to show a clinical advantage over the LC conduit in this context. MDPI 2023-03-02 /pmc/articles/PMC10056309/ /pubmed/36975871 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcdd10030107 Text en © 2023 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Salem, Mohamed
Boehme, Maximilian
Friedrich, Christine
Ernst, Markus
Puehler, Thomas
Lutter, Georg
Schoeneich, Felix
Haneya, Assad
Cremer, Jochen
Schoettler, Jan
Aortic Root Replacement Surgery—A Center Experience with Biological Valve Prostheses
title Aortic Root Replacement Surgery—A Center Experience with Biological Valve Prostheses
title_full Aortic Root Replacement Surgery—A Center Experience with Biological Valve Prostheses
title_fullStr Aortic Root Replacement Surgery—A Center Experience with Biological Valve Prostheses
title_full_unstemmed Aortic Root Replacement Surgery—A Center Experience with Biological Valve Prostheses
title_short Aortic Root Replacement Surgery—A Center Experience with Biological Valve Prostheses
title_sort aortic root replacement surgery—a center experience with biological valve prostheses
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10056309/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36975871
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcdd10030107
work_keys_str_mv AT salemmohamed aorticrootreplacementsurgeryacenterexperiencewithbiologicalvalveprostheses
AT boehmemaximilian aorticrootreplacementsurgeryacenterexperiencewithbiologicalvalveprostheses
AT friedrichchristine aorticrootreplacementsurgeryacenterexperiencewithbiologicalvalveprostheses
AT ernstmarkus aorticrootreplacementsurgeryacenterexperiencewithbiologicalvalveprostheses
AT puehlerthomas aorticrootreplacementsurgeryacenterexperiencewithbiologicalvalveprostheses
AT luttergeorg aorticrootreplacementsurgeryacenterexperiencewithbiologicalvalveprostheses
AT schoeneichfelix aorticrootreplacementsurgeryacenterexperiencewithbiologicalvalveprostheses
AT haneyaassad aorticrootreplacementsurgeryacenterexperiencewithbiologicalvalveprostheses
AT cremerjochen aorticrootreplacementsurgeryacenterexperiencewithbiologicalvalveprostheses
AT schoettlerjan aorticrootreplacementsurgeryacenterexperiencewithbiologicalvalveprostheses