The valve-in-valve operation for aortic homograft dysfunction: A better option

Zain I Khalpey, Wernard Borstlap, Patrick O. Myers, Jan D. Schmitto, Siobhan McGurk, Ann Maloney, Lawrence H. Cohn

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Reoperations on dysfunctional aortic homografts often require root reconstruction with coronary reanastomosis. This is associated with substantial perioperative morbidity and mortality. Resecting compromised aortic homograft valve leaflets and seating a new valve within the homograft annulus avoids root reconstruction and is a viable alternative. We retrospectively evaluated 50 patients undergoing reoperations on dysfunctional homografts between 1999 and 2011. Outcomes were compared between valve-in-valve (ViV) and aortic valve-prosthetic conduit (AVR-C) procedures. Twenty-eight patients underwent ViV, and 22 had AVR-C. Groups were similar in age, sex, and incidence of endocarditis and renal failure. Median time between homograft and index procedure was 8.5 years for AVR-C and 8 years for ViV patients (p = 0.93). Patients undergoing AVR-C had longer cardiopulmonary bypass (282 versus 151 minutes; p < 0.001) and cross-clamp (207 versus 106 minutes; p < 0.001) times and received significantly more intraoperative red blood cell transfusions than ViV patients (36.4% versus 7.1%; p = 0.014). Patients undergoing ViV had shorter intensive care unit stays (47 hours versus 67 hours for AVR-C; p = 0.049) and fewer postoperative red blood cell transfusions (21.4% versus 54.5%; p = 0.020). There were trends toward shorter ventilation times for ViV patients (6 hours versus 11 hours for AVR-C; p = 0.077), shorter postoperative length of stay (7 days versus 9 days; p = 0.092), and fewer readmissions (3.6% versus 19.0%; p 0.073). One operative mortality occurred in the AVR-C group. The strategy of replacing aortic valve leaflets in a failed calcified homograft, with a valve seated inside the annulus, is a safe alternative to root reconstruction. Preserving root architecture and coronary buttons facilitates shorter cardiopulmonary bypass and cross-clamp times, and directly impacts transfusions, intensive care unit time, hospital stay, and readmission rates.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)731-736
Number of pages6
JournalAnnals of Thoracic Surgery
Volume94
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 2012
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Aortic Valve
Allografts
Erythrocyte Transfusion
Cardiopulmonary Bypass
Reoperation
Intensive Care Units
Length of Stay
Patient Readmission
Mortality
Endocarditis
Renal Insufficiency
Ventilation
Morbidity
Incidence

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
  • Surgery
  • Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine

Cite this

Khalpey, Z. I., Borstlap, W., Myers, P. O., Schmitto, J. D., McGurk, S., Maloney, A., & Cohn, L. H. (2012). The valve-in-valve operation for aortic homograft dysfunction: A better option. Annals of Thoracic Surgery, 94(3), 731-736. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2012.04.019

The valve-in-valve operation for aortic homograft dysfunction : A better option. / Khalpey, Zain I; Borstlap, Wernard; Myers, Patrick O.; Schmitto, Jan D.; McGurk, Siobhan; Maloney, Ann; Cohn, Lawrence H.

In: Annals of Thoracic Surgery, Vol. 94, No. 3, 09.2012, p. 731-736.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Khalpey, ZI, Borstlap, W, Myers, PO, Schmitto, JD, McGurk, S, Maloney, A & Cohn, LH 2012, 'The valve-in-valve operation for aortic homograft dysfunction: A better option', Annals of Thoracic Surgery, vol. 94, no. 3, pp. 731-736. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2012.04.019
Khalpey, Zain I ; Borstlap, Wernard ; Myers, Patrick O. ; Schmitto, Jan D. ; McGurk, Siobhan ; Maloney, Ann ; Cohn, Lawrence H. / The valve-in-valve operation for aortic homograft dysfunction : A better option. In: Annals of Thoracic Surgery. 2012 ; Vol. 94, No. 3. pp. 731-736.
@article{cfae8ee6756f41679b2c5162e499c712,
title = "The valve-in-valve operation for aortic homograft dysfunction: A better option",
abstract = "Reoperations on dysfunctional aortic homografts often require root reconstruction with coronary reanastomosis. This is associated with substantial perioperative morbidity and mortality. Resecting compromised aortic homograft valve leaflets and seating a new valve within the homograft annulus avoids root reconstruction and is a viable alternative. We retrospectively evaluated 50 patients undergoing reoperations on dysfunctional homografts between 1999 and 2011. Outcomes were compared between valve-in-valve (ViV) and aortic valve-prosthetic conduit (AVR-C) procedures. Twenty-eight patients underwent ViV, and 22 had AVR-C. Groups were similar in age, sex, and incidence of endocarditis and renal failure. Median time between homograft and index procedure was 8.5 years for AVR-C and 8 years for ViV patients (p = 0.93). Patients undergoing AVR-C had longer cardiopulmonary bypass (282 versus 151 minutes; p < 0.001) and cross-clamp (207 versus 106 minutes; p < 0.001) times and received significantly more intraoperative red blood cell transfusions than ViV patients (36.4{\%} versus 7.1{\%}; p = 0.014). Patients undergoing ViV had shorter intensive care unit stays (47 hours versus 67 hours for AVR-C; p = 0.049) and fewer postoperative red blood cell transfusions (21.4{\%} versus 54.5{\%}; p = 0.020). There were trends toward shorter ventilation times for ViV patients (6 hours versus 11 hours for AVR-C; p = 0.077), shorter postoperative length of stay (7 days versus 9 days; p = 0.092), and fewer readmissions (3.6{\%} versus 19.0{\%}; p 0.073). One operative mortality occurred in the AVR-C group. The strategy of replacing aortic valve leaflets in a failed calcified homograft, with a valve seated inside the annulus, is a safe alternative to root reconstruction. Preserving root architecture and coronary buttons facilitates shorter cardiopulmonary bypass and cross-clamp times, and directly impacts transfusions, intensive care unit time, hospital stay, and readmission rates.",
author = "Khalpey, {Zain I} and Wernard Borstlap and Myers, {Patrick O.} and Schmitto, {Jan D.} and Siobhan McGurk and Ann Maloney and Cohn, {Lawrence H.}",
year = "2012",
month = "9",
doi = "10.1016/j.athoracsur.2012.04.019",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "94",
pages = "731--736",
journal = "Annals of Thoracic Surgery",
issn = "0003-4975",
publisher = "Elsevier USA",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The valve-in-valve operation for aortic homograft dysfunction

T2 - A better option

AU - Khalpey, Zain I

AU - Borstlap, Wernard

AU - Myers, Patrick O.

AU - Schmitto, Jan D.

AU - McGurk, Siobhan

AU - Maloney, Ann

AU - Cohn, Lawrence H.

PY - 2012/9

Y1 - 2012/9

N2 - Reoperations on dysfunctional aortic homografts often require root reconstruction with coronary reanastomosis. This is associated with substantial perioperative morbidity and mortality. Resecting compromised aortic homograft valve leaflets and seating a new valve within the homograft annulus avoids root reconstruction and is a viable alternative. We retrospectively evaluated 50 patients undergoing reoperations on dysfunctional homografts between 1999 and 2011. Outcomes were compared between valve-in-valve (ViV) and aortic valve-prosthetic conduit (AVR-C) procedures. Twenty-eight patients underwent ViV, and 22 had AVR-C. Groups were similar in age, sex, and incidence of endocarditis and renal failure. Median time between homograft and index procedure was 8.5 years for AVR-C and 8 years for ViV patients (p = 0.93). Patients undergoing AVR-C had longer cardiopulmonary bypass (282 versus 151 minutes; p < 0.001) and cross-clamp (207 versus 106 minutes; p < 0.001) times and received significantly more intraoperative red blood cell transfusions than ViV patients (36.4% versus 7.1%; p = 0.014). Patients undergoing ViV had shorter intensive care unit stays (47 hours versus 67 hours for AVR-C; p = 0.049) and fewer postoperative red blood cell transfusions (21.4% versus 54.5%; p = 0.020). There were trends toward shorter ventilation times for ViV patients (6 hours versus 11 hours for AVR-C; p = 0.077), shorter postoperative length of stay (7 days versus 9 days; p = 0.092), and fewer readmissions (3.6% versus 19.0%; p 0.073). One operative mortality occurred in the AVR-C group. The strategy of replacing aortic valve leaflets in a failed calcified homograft, with a valve seated inside the annulus, is a safe alternative to root reconstruction. Preserving root architecture and coronary buttons facilitates shorter cardiopulmonary bypass and cross-clamp times, and directly impacts transfusions, intensive care unit time, hospital stay, and readmission rates.

AB - Reoperations on dysfunctional aortic homografts often require root reconstruction with coronary reanastomosis. This is associated with substantial perioperative morbidity and mortality. Resecting compromised aortic homograft valve leaflets and seating a new valve within the homograft annulus avoids root reconstruction and is a viable alternative. We retrospectively evaluated 50 patients undergoing reoperations on dysfunctional homografts between 1999 and 2011. Outcomes were compared between valve-in-valve (ViV) and aortic valve-prosthetic conduit (AVR-C) procedures. Twenty-eight patients underwent ViV, and 22 had AVR-C. Groups were similar in age, sex, and incidence of endocarditis and renal failure. Median time between homograft and index procedure was 8.5 years for AVR-C and 8 years for ViV patients (p = 0.93). Patients undergoing AVR-C had longer cardiopulmonary bypass (282 versus 151 minutes; p < 0.001) and cross-clamp (207 versus 106 minutes; p < 0.001) times and received significantly more intraoperative red blood cell transfusions than ViV patients (36.4% versus 7.1%; p = 0.014). Patients undergoing ViV had shorter intensive care unit stays (47 hours versus 67 hours for AVR-C; p = 0.049) and fewer postoperative red blood cell transfusions (21.4% versus 54.5%; p = 0.020). There were trends toward shorter ventilation times for ViV patients (6 hours versus 11 hours for AVR-C; p = 0.077), shorter postoperative length of stay (7 days versus 9 days; p = 0.092), and fewer readmissions (3.6% versus 19.0%; p 0.073). One operative mortality occurred in the AVR-C group. The strategy of replacing aortic valve leaflets in a failed calcified homograft, with a valve seated inside the annulus, is a safe alternative to root reconstruction. Preserving root architecture and coronary buttons facilitates shorter cardiopulmonary bypass and cross-clamp times, and directly impacts transfusions, intensive care unit time, hospital stay, and readmission rates.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84865261092&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84865261092&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2012.04.019

DO - 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2012.04.019

M3 - Article

C2 - 22626756

AN - SCOPUS:84865261092

VL - 94

SP - 731

EP - 736

JO - Annals of Thoracic Surgery

JF - Annals of Thoracic Surgery

SN - 0003-4975

IS - 3

ER -