Open hemiarch versus clamped ascending aorta replacement for aortopathy during initial bicuspid aortic valve replacement

Kevin L. Greason, Juan A. Crestanello, Katherine S. King, Gabor Bagameri, Sertac M. Cicek, John M. Stulak, Richard C. Daly, Joseph A. Dearani, Hartzell V. Schaff

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Scopus citations

Abstract

Background: There is controversy regarding the extent of aortic resection necessary in patients with aortopathy related to bicuspid aortic valve disease. To address this issue, we reviewed our experience in patients undergoing ascending aorta replacement during bicuspid aortic valve replacement. Methods: We reviewed 702 patients who underwent ascending aorta replacement at the time of initial nonemergent native bicuspid aortic valve replacement at our institution between January 2000 and June 2017. Treatment cohorts included an open hemiarch replacement group (n = 225; 32%) and a clamped ascending aorta replacement group (n = 477; 68%). Results: Median patient age was 60 years (interquartile range [IQR], 51-67 years), female sex was present in 113 patients 16%, ejection fraction was 62% (IQR, 56%-66%), and aortic arch diameter was 33 mm (IQR, 29-36 mm). Cardiopulmonary bypass time was longer in the hemiarch replacement group (188 minutes vs 97 minutes; P < .001). Procedure-related complications (36%) and mortality (<1%) were similar in the 2 groups; however, the hemiarch group had an increased odds of blood transfusion (odds ratio, 1.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.15-2.28; P = .006). The median duration of follow-up was 6.0 years (95% CI, 5.3-6.8 years). Overall survival was 94 ± 1% at 5 years and 80 ± 2% at 10 years. Multivariable analysis demonstrated similar survival in the 2 groups (hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.51-1.33; P = .439). No repeat aortic arch operations were done for aortopathy over the duration of clinical follow-up. Conclusions: Compared with patients in the clamped ascending aorta replacement group, patients in the hemi-arch replacement group had longer cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic cross-clamp times, along with an increased risk of blood transfusion, but similar freedom from repeat aortic arch operation and survival. We identified no advantage of performing hemiarch replacement in the absence of aortic arch dilation.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalJournal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Jan 1 2019

    Fingerprint

Keywords

  • aneurysm
  • aortopathy
  • bicuspid aortic valve
  • circulatory arrest
  • hemiarch replacement

ASJC Scopus subject areas

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

Cite this