Background: The goal of this study was to compare the early and late outcomes of different techniques of proximal root reconstruction during the repair of acute Type A aortic dissection, including aortic valve (AV) resuspension, aortic valve replacement (AVR), and a root replacement procedure.
Methods: All patients who underwent acute Type A aortic dissection repair between January 2000 and October 2010 at four academic institutions were compiled from each institution's Society of Thoracic Surgeons Database. This included 189 patients who underwent a concomitant aortic valve (AV) procedure; 111, 21, and 57 patients underwent AV resuspension, AVR, and the Bentall procedure, respectively. The median age of patients undergoing a root replacement procedure was significantly younger than the other two groups. Early clinical outcomes and 10-year actuarial survival rates were compared. Trends in outcomes and surgical techniques throughout the duration of the study were also analyzed.
Results: The operative mortality rates were 17%, 29%, and 18%, for AV resuspension, AVR, and root replacement, respectively. Operative mortality (p = 0.459) was comparable between groups. Hemorrhage related re-exploration did not differ significantly between groups (p = 0.182); however, root replacement procedures tended to have decreased rates of bleeding when compared to AVR (p = 0.067). The 10-year actuarial survival rates for the AV resuspension, Bentall, and AVR groups were 72%, 56%, and 36%, respectively (log-rank p = 0.035).
Conclusions: The 10-year actuarial survival was significantly lower in those receiving AVR compared to those receiving root replacement procedures or AV resuspension. Operative mortality was comparable between the three groups.
Keywords: Aorta; Aortic aneurysm; Aortic root; Aortic valve.