HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Personal Folders Download to citation manager Permission Requests Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Kallenbach, K. Articles by Haverich, A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Kallenbach, K. Articles by Haverich, A. Related Collections Great vessels Valve disease

Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2004;25:663-670
© 2004 Elsevier Science NL

Acute aortic dissection versus aortic root aneurysm: comparison of indications for valve sparing aortic root reconstruction

Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany

Received 20 October 2003; received in revised form 12 January 2004; accepted 14 January 2004.

^* Corresponding author. Address: Medizinische Hochschule Hannover, Klinik für Thorax-, Herz- und Gefäßchirurgie, Carl-Neuberg-Straße 1, D-30625 Hannover, Germany. Tel.: +49-511-532-2253; fax: +49-511-532-5404
e-mail: kallenbach{at}thg.mh-hannover.de

Objectives: To prove whether different indications for valve sparing aortic root reconstruction may have an impact on the outcome and longevity of the repair. Methods: From July 1993 to March 2003, the reimplantation technique for valve sparing aortic root reconstruction was applied to 232 patients. In 44 patients, indication for operation was acute aortic dissection type A (AADA). These patients were compared with 44 randomised patients operated for aortic root aneurysm (root) by matched pair analysis with respect to age, gender, time point of operation and presence of Marfan's syndrome. Peri- and post-operative courses with focus on survival and valvular stability were analysed. Results: Pre-operative grade of aortic insufficiency was 2.4±1 in root vs. 1.5±1.7 in AADA (P=0.004). Mean CPB-time (214±60 vs. 171±42 min; P<0.001), aortic cross clamp time (158±40 vs. 129±39 min; P=0.001) and stay on ICU (5.2±9 vs. 1.7±1 days; P=0.034) were longer for AADA, while hospitalisation was comparable (14±10 vs. 14±7 days; P=0.88). Five patients (11.4%) from AADA died peri-operatively compared to no patient from root (P=0.055). None of the early deaths were valve-related. Re-thoracotomy rate was 6.8% for both groups. Mean follow-up was 19±21 months for AADA vs. 28±21 months for root (P=0.038). Survival at 3 years was 88±5% for AADA and 100% for root (P=0.028). Freedom from valvular reoperation was 97±2.7% for root and 97±3% for AADA at 3 years (P=0.44). At last investigation, mean grade of aortic insufficiency for AADA was 0.2±0.3 compared to 0.3±0.3 for root (P=0.34). Conclusions: Regardless of the underlying indication, the aortic valve preserving reimplantation technique can be performed with favourable functional results.

Key Words: Aortic aneurysm • Aortic dissection • Valves • Aorta • Valve reconstruction

This article has been cited by other articles:

				E. Lansac, I. Di Centa, F. Raoux, R. Raffoul, N. Al Attar, A. Rama, C. Acar, and P. Nataf Aortic annuloplasty: towards a standardized approach of conservative aortic valve surgery MMCTS, March 29, 2007; 2007(0329): 1958. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				F. Farhat, M. Durand, L. Boussel, I. Sanchez, J. Villard, and O. Jegaden Should a reimplantation valve sparing procedure be done systematically in type A aortic dissection? Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg., January 1, 2007; 31(1): 36 - 41. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. M. Albes, U. A. Stock, and M. Hartrumpf Restitution of the Aortic Valve: What is New, What is Proven, and What is Obsolete? Ann. Thorac. Surg., October 1, 2005; 80(4): 1540 - 1549. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]