Repair of the bicuspid aortic valve: A viable alternative to replacement with a bioprosthesis

Elena Ashikhmina, Thoralf M. Sundt, Joseph A. Dearani, Heidi M. Connolly, Zhuo Li, Hartzell V Schaff

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

46 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: We sought to compare the safety and durability of bicuspid aortic valve repair versus replacement with a bioprosthesis. Methods: We reviewed medical records of patients aged 18 years or older undergoing bicuspid aortic valve repair for aortic regurgitation from 1984 through 2007. We analyzed early outcomes and predictors of aortic valve replacement after initial repair. Patients with repair were compared with an age- and sex-matched cohort who had replacement with a bioprosthesis. Overall survival and survival free from reoperations were compared between groups. Results: The mean follow-up period for 108 consecutive patients with repair was 5.1 (standard deviation, 4.1) years. The initially repaired valve was subsequently replaced in 19 (18%) patients. No bicuspid aortic valve repair technique or morphologic characteristic included in univariate risk factor analysis was associated with increased probability of replacement after initial repair. The 5- and 10-year survival rates after repair were 96% and 87%, respectively. Freedom from valve replacement was 96%, 89%, and 49% at 1, 5, and 10 years after repair, respectively. A separate analysis of 81 matched patients with repair or receipt of an aortic valve bioprosthesis showed no significant difference in 10-year survival (72% vs 79%, P = .13) or freedom from reoperation between groups (90% vs 98% and 72% vs 64% in 5 and 10 years, respectively; P < .12). Conclusions: Bicuspid aortic valve repair is a viable alternative to replacement with a bioprosthesis because durability and safety are similar between both surgical management methods for aortic regurgitation. After initial repair, approximately half of the patients require aortic valve replacement within 10 years.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1395-1401
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
Volume139
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 2010

Fingerprint

Bioprosthesis
Aortic Valve
Aortic Valve Insufficiency
Reoperation
Survival
Safety
Statistical Factor Analysis
Medical Records
Bicuspid Aortic Valve
Survival Rate

ASJC Scopus subject areas

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

Cite this

Repair of the bicuspid aortic valve : A viable alternative to replacement with a bioprosthesis. / Ashikhmina, Elena; Sundt, Thoralf M.; Dearani, Joseph A.; Connolly, Heidi M.; Li, Zhuo; Schaff, Hartzell V.

In: Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Vol. 139, No. 6, 06.2010, p. 1395-1401.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Ashikhmina, Elena ; Sundt, Thoralf M. ; Dearani, Joseph A. ; Connolly, Heidi M. ; Li, Zhuo ; Schaff, Hartzell V. / Repair of the bicuspid aortic valve : A viable alternative to replacement with a bioprosthesis. In: Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. 2010 ; Vol. 139, No. 6. pp. 1395-1401.
@article{a6114eaf2f674e1fb4ce084cea27cc31,
title = "Repair of the bicuspid aortic valve: A viable alternative to replacement with a bioprosthesis",
abstract = "Objective: We sought to compare the safety and durability of bicuspid aortic valve repair versus replacement with a bioprosthesis. Methods: We reviewed medical records of patients aged 18 years or older undergoing bicuspid aortic valve repair for aortic regurgitation from 1984 through 2007. We analyzed early outcomes and predictors of aortic valve replacement after initial repair. Patients with repair were compared with an age- and sex-matched cohort who had replacement with a bioprosthesis. Overall survival and survival free from reoperations were compared between groups. Results: The mean follow-up period for 108 consecutive patients with repair was 5.1 (standard deviation, 4.1) years. The initially repaired valve was subsequently replaced in 19 (18{\%}) patients. No bicuspid aortic valve repair technique or morphologic characteristic included in univariate risk factor analysis was associated with increased probability of replacement after initial repair. The 5- and 10-year survival rates after repair were 96{\%} and 87{\%}, respectively. Freedom from valve replacement was 96{\%}, 89{\%}, and 49{\%} at 1, 5, and 10 years after repair, respectively. A separate analysis of 81 matched patients with repair or receipt of an aortic valve bioprosthesis showed no significant difference in 10-year survival (72{\%} vs 79{\%}, P = .13) or freedom from reoperation between groups (90{\%} vs 98{\%} and 72{\%} vs 64{\%} in 5 and 10 years, respectively; P < .12). Conclusions: Bicuspid aortic valve repair is a viable alternative to replacement with a bioprosthesis because durability and safety are similar between both surgical management methods for aortic regurgitation. After initial repair, approximately half of the patients require aortic valve replacement within 10 years.",
author = "Elena Ashikhmina and Sundt, {Thoralf M.} and Dearani, {Joseph A.} and Connolly, {Heidi M.} and Zhuo Li and Schaff, {Hartzell V}",
year = "2010",
month = "6",
doi = "10.1016/j.jtcvs.2010.02.035",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "139",
pages = "1395--1401",
journal = "Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery",
issn = "0022-5223",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Repair of the bicuspid aortic valve

T2 - A viable alternative to replacement with a bioprosthesis

AU - Ashikhmina, Elena

AU - Sundt, Thoralf M.

AU - Dearani, Joseph A.

AU - Connolly, Heidi M.

AU - Li, Zhuo

AU - Schaff, Hartzell V

PY - 2010/6

Y1 - 2010/6

N2 - Objective: We sought to compare the safety and durability of bicuspid aortic valve repair versus replacement with a bioprosthesis. Methods: We reviewed medical records of patients aged 18 years or older undergoing bicuspid aortic valve repair for aortic regurgitation from 1984 through 2007. We analyzed early outcomes and predictors of aortic valve replacement after initial repair. Patients with repair were compared with an age- and sex-matched cohort who had replacement with a bioprosthesis. Overall survival and survival free from reoperations were compared between groups. Results: The mean follow-up period for 108 consecutive patients with repair was 5.1 (standard deviation, 4.1) years. The initially repaired valve was subsequently replaced in 19 (18%) patients. No bicuspid aortic valve repair technique or morphologic characteristic included in univariate risk factor analysis was associated with increased probability of replacement after initial repair. The 5- and 10-year survival rates after repair were 96% and 87%, respectively. Freedom from valve replacement was 96%, 89%, and 49% at 1, 5, and 10 years after repair, respectively. A separate analysis of 81 matched patients with repair or receipt of an aortic valve bioprosthesis showed no significant difference in 10-year survival (72% vs 79%, P = .13) or freedom from reoperation between groups (90% vs 98% and 72% vs 64% in 5 and 10 years, respectively; P < .12). Conclusions: Bicuspid aortic valve repair is a viable alternative to replacement with a bioprosthesis because durability and safety are similar between both surgical management methods for aortic regurgitation. After initial repair, approximately half of the patients require aortic valve replacement within 10 years.

AB - Objective: We sought to compare the safety and durability of bicuspid aortic valve repair versus replacement with a bioprosthesis. Methods: We reviewed medical records of patients aged 18 years or older undergoing bicuspid aortic valve repair for aortic regurgitation from 1984 through 2007. We analyzed early outcomes and predictors of aortic valve replacement after initial repair. Patients with repair were compared with an age- and sex-matched cohort who had replacement with a bioprosthesis. Overall survival and survival free from reoperations were compared between groups. Results: The mean follow-up period for 108 consecutive patients with repair was 5.1 (standard deviation, 4.1) years. The initially repaired valve was subsequently replaced in 19 (18%) patients. No bicuspid aortic valve repair technique or morphologic characteristic included in univariate risk factor analysis was associated with increased probability of replacement after initial repair. The 5- and 10-year survival rates after repair were 96% and 87%, respectively. Freedom from valve replacement was 96%, 89%, and 49% at 1, 5, and 10 years after repair, respectively. A separate analysis of 81 matched patients with repair or receipt of an aortic valve bioprosthesis showed no significant difference in 10-year survival (72% vs 79%, P = .13) or freedom from reoperation between groups (90% vs 98% and 72% vs 64% in 5 and 10 years, respectively; P < .12). Conclusions: Bicuspid aortic valve repair is a viable alternative to replacement with a bioprosthesis because durability and safety are similar between both surgical management methods for aortic regurgitation. After initial repair, approximately half of the patients require aortic valve replacement within 10 years.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77952431047&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77952431047&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2010.02.035

DO - 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2010.02.035

M3 - Article

C2 - 20392456

AN - SCOPUS:77952431047

VL - 139

SP - 1395

EP - 1401

JO - Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery

JF - Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery

SN - 0022-5223

IS - 6

ER -