Donate Help Contact The AHA Sign In Home
American Heart Association
Circulation
Search: search_blue_button Advanced Search
Circulation. 1999;100:II-103-II-106

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Carr-White, G. S.
Right arrow Articles by Yacoub, M. H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Carr-White, G. S.
Right arrow Articles by Yacoub, M. H.
Related Collections
Right arrow Valvular heart disease
Right arrow CV surgery: valvular disease

(Circulation. 1999;100:II-103.)
© 1999 American Heart Association, Inc.


Surgery for Valvular Heart Disease

Pulmonary Autograft Versus Aortic Homograft for Rereplacement of the Aortic Valve

Results From a Subset of a Prospective Randomized Trial

Gerald S. Carr-White, MRCP; Sally Glennan, REN; Sue Edwards, BSc; Francis D. Ferdinand, MD; Anthony C. Desouza, FRCS; John R. Pepper, FRCS; Magdi H. Yacoub, FRS

From the Department of Academic Surgery, National Heart and Lung Institute, Royal Brompton Hospital, Sydney Street, London, UK.

Correspondence to Prof Sir Magdi Yacoub, Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, National Heart and Lung Institute, Royal Brompton Hospital, Sydney Street, London SW3 6NP, UK. E-mail g.carr-white{at}rbh.nthames.nhs.uk

Background—The use of a pulmonary autograft for rereplacement of the aortic valve has both potential advantages and disadvantages. This study details the early results of a subset of patients enrolled in a prospective randomized trial comparing pulmonary autografts and aortic homografts who have had previous aortic valve replacements.

Methods and Results—A total of 47 patients who had undergone >=1 previous aortic valve replacement were randomized to receive either a pulmonary autograft (24 patients aged 40±11 years) or an aortic homograft (23 patients aged 37±11 years) for rereplacement of the aortic valve. One early death occurred in the homograft group, and 1 late (7 months) death occurred in the autograft group. One patient who received a pulmonary autograft was reoperated on for inflammatory pulmonary stenosis. One patient in each group was reopened for bleeding (both within 24 hours). Two patients in the autograft group had postoperative neurological weakness; they fully recovered over 2 months. Hospital stay, blood loss, incidence of perioperative arrhythmia, and markers of coronary ischemia were similar between the 2 groups. At 6-month follow-up (range, 1 to 12 months), left ventricular end-diastolic diameter was similar in both groups (homografts, 5.0±0.9 cm; autografts, 5.2±0.6 cm; P=NS), and no patient in either group had significant aortic valve dysfunction.

Conclusions—Rereplacement of the aortic valve with a pulmonary autograft is feasible and safe in patients aged 14 to 60, regardless of their preoperative diagnosis or clinical condition.


Key Words: aorta • valves • autograft • surgery