Comparison of Two Strategies for Aortic Valve-Sparing Root Replacement.

Abstract

Since its introduction in 1992, multiple variations of the aortic valve-sparing David procedure technique have been described. Here, we present the short- and midterm outcomes of 2 centers using the straight tube graft (David-I) and the Valsalva prosthesis in patients who underwent isolated David procedure. Between March 2002 and October 2015, 232 patients underwent the David procedure at 2 European centers. Patients received either a straight tube graft (David-I, group A, n = 103, 74% men) or Valsalva graft (group B, n = 129, 85% men). Mean age was 47 ± 17 years in group A and 48 ± 17 years in group B (P = .916). There were significantly more cusp repairs in group B (n=28, 22%) compared with group A (n = 4, 4%, P < .001). The 30-day mortality rate was 1% (n = 1) in group A and 2% (n = 2, P = .698) in group B. Postoperative echocardiography showed aortic insufficiency ≥II in 0% (n = 0) of group A and 17% (n = 21) of group B (P < .001). Follow-up comprised 1530 patient-years, and survival was comparable between the 2 groups (P = .799). Follow-up echocardiography showed aortic insufficiency ≥II in 22% (n = 15) of group A and 39% (n = 33) of group B (P < .026). The rates for aortic valve-related reoperation were 8% (n = 8) in group A and 13% (n = 16) in group B (P = .241). Logistic Cox regression analysis identified bicuspid aortic valve (odds ratio, 3.435; 95% confidence interval, 1.459-8.083, P = .005) and postoperative aortic insufficiency ≥II (odds ratio, 5.988; 95% confidence interval, 2.545-14.088, P < .001) as risk factors for aortic valve-related reoperation. The aortic valve-sparing David procedure has acceptable midterm results. Our results show that the David-I procedure with straight tube graft is not inferior to those performed with Valsalva prosthesis.