Repair of the Regurgitant Bicuspid or Tricuspid Aortic Valve

Kari, Fabian A.; Siepe, Matthias; Sievers, Hans‐Hinrich; Beyersdorf, Friedhelm

doi:10.1161/circulationaha.113.002475

Cited by 31 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[8][9][10][11]22 Bicuspid aortic valves often require more complex repair than the tricuspid valves with pure functional AR. 24 With strong motivation for the valve salvage namely in young patients, our results indicate that a valve sparing approach can also be applied in BAV. The indication and risk of recurrent AR with consequent reoperation should be discussed properly with the patient.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 65%

Valve Cuspidity: A Risk Factor for Aortic Valve Repair?

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 65%

Valve Cuspidity: A Risk Factor for Aortic Valve Repair?

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A total of 32% of these patients had a Sievers' type 0 bicuspid aortic valve; 66% of these patients had undergone concomitant valve cusp repair, which was usually a cusp free margin shortening to correct cusp prolapse into the left ventricular outflow tract. With a cumulative follow-up of 190 patient-years, survival was 99 AE 2%, freedom from reoperation 90 AE 5% at 6 years of follow-up [19]. Several other reports have shown favorable results in the bicuspid aortic valve cohort.…”

Section: Commentmentioning

confidence: 85%

Residual and Progressive Aortic Regurgitation After Valve-Sparing Root Replacement: A Propensity-Matched Multi-Institutional Analysis in 764 Patients

Kari

Doll²,

Hemmer³

et al. 2016

The Annals of Thoracic Surgery

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The David valvesparing aortic root replacement procedure (V-SARR) has been established as a durable treatment alternative to valve replacement or a composite valve graft procedure [2,3]. Several technical variations of the original David operation (David I) [4,5] have been introduced [6], mainly aimed at re-creation of the sinuses of Valsalva (SOV), or 'neo-sinuses' and a neo-sinotubular junction (STJ) with presumed superior haemodynamics and long-term functional valve outcomes [7]. By contrast, the original David I procedure utilizes a single prosthesis for root and ascending aortic replacement, whereby neither a neo-STJ nor neo-SOV are created.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

David I reimplantation procedure for aortic root replacement in Marfan patients: medium-term outcome

Kari

Beyersdorf

Rylski

et al. 2014

Interact CardioVasc Thorac Surg

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OBJECTIVES: Technical variations of the David reimplantation valve-sparing aortic root replacement (V-SARR) procedure have been proposed to be advantageous in patients with connective tissue disease, such as the Marfan syndrome (MFS). We report results of a Marfan cohort treated exclusively with the non-modified David I procedure.METHODS: Forty-eight Marfan patients (25 males, mean age 33 ± 12 years, range 15-62 years) underwent the original variant of the David V-SARR (David I) between 1997 and 2013. Forty-two operations (88%) were performed as elective procedures for aortic root aneurysms and six for acute dissections (12%). Seventeen had aortic regurgitation (AR) grades ≥2+ preoperatively, and 3 had AR >2+. No patients with severe AR (4+) were selected for V-SARR. Three full or hemi-arch replacements were performed. Patients who were operated on using a variation of the David I or David II procedure were excluded. RESULTS:Mean prosthesis size was 28 ± 3 mm (18-30 mm). Mean clinical and echocardiographic follow-up (98% complete) was 3.8 ± 3.7 years with a cumulative follow-up of 178 patient-years. The early mortality rate was 2% (one hospital death). The survival rate was 98% (95% confidence 84-99%) at 4 years and 90% (57-98%) at 8 years with 5 patients at risk at 10 years. The rate of freedom from root or valve reoperation was 97% (79-99%) and 97% (79-99%) at 4 and 8 years, respectively. Only one patient required mechanical aortic valve replacement for progression of AR. CONCLUSIONS:Despite potential theoretical drawbacks of the David I V-SARR technique without neo-sinuses or a neo-sinotubular junction, it results in a favourable mid-term outcome in Marfan patients and compares well with reported results of different modifications of David V-SARR.

show abstract

Repair of the Regurgitant Bicuspid or Tricuspid Aortic Valve

Cited by 31 publications

References 36 publications

Valve Cuspidity: A Risk Factor for Aortic Valve Repair?

Valve Cuspidity: A Risk Factor for Aortic Valve Repair?

Residual and Progressive Aortic Regurgitation After Valve-Sparing Root Replacement: A Propensity-Matched Multi-Institutional Analysis in 764 Patients

David I reimplantation procedure for aortic root replacement in Marfan patients: medium-term outcome

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About