Comparison of outcomes between aortic root replacement and
supra-coronary interposition graft for type A aortic dissection: A
Retrospective Case Series
Abstract
Background The decision to conserve or replace the native aortic
valve following acute type-A aortic dissection (ATAAD) is an area of
cardiac surgery without standardised practice. This single centre
retrospective study analysed the long-term performance of the native
aortic valve and root following surgery for ATAAD. Methods
Between 2009 and 2018 all cases ATAAD treated at Royal Brompton and
Harefield NHS Foundation Trust were analysed. Patients were divided into
2 groups: a) ascending aorta (interposition) graft (AAG) without valve
replacement; and b) non-valve-sparing aortic root replacement (ARR).
Pre-operative covariates were compared, as well as operative
characteristics and post-operative complications. Long-term survival and
echocardiographic outcomes were analysed using regression analysis.
Results In total, 116 patients were included: 63 patients in the
AAG group and 53 patients in the ARR group. In patients where the native
aortic valve was conserved, 9 developed severe aortic regurgitation and
2 patients developed dilation of the aortic root requiring subsequent
replacement during the follow-up period. Aortic regurgitation at
presentation was not found to be associated with subsequent risk of
developing severe aortic regurgitation or reintervention on the aortic
valve. Overall mortality was observed to be significantly lower in
patients undergoing AAG (17.5% vs. 41.5%, p=0.004). Conclusions
With careful patient selection, the native aortic root shows good
long-term durability both in terms of valve competence and stable root
dimensions after surgery for ATAAD. This study supports the
consideration of conservation of the aortic valve during emergency
surgery for type-A dissection, in the absence of a definitive indication
for root replacement, including in cases where aortic regurgitation
complicates the presentation.