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 Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Leyh, R. G. Articles by Haverich, A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Leyh, R. G. Articles by Haverich, A.

(Circulation. 2002;106:I-229.)
© 2002 American Heart Association, Inc.

Aortic and Peripheral Vascular Surgery

High Failure Rate After Valve-sparing Aortic Root Replacement Using the "Remodeling Technique" in Acute Type A Aortic Dissection

Rainer G. Leyh, MD; Stefan Fischer, MD; Klaus Kallenbach, MD; Theo Kofidis, MD; Klaus Pethig, MD; Wolfgang Harringer, MD; Axel Haverich, MD

From the Division of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Hanover Medical School, Hanover, Germany.

Correspondence to Rainer G. Leyh, M.D., Division of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Hanover Medical School, Carl Neuberg St. 1, 30623 Hanover, Germany. Phone: 49-511-532-6581, Fax: 49-511-532-5404, E-mail: leyh{at}thg.mh-hannover.de

Background Valve-sparing surgery including the replacement of the sinus of valsalvae were initially meant to be promising approaches in the treatment of acute type A aortic dissection. However, the long-term outcome after valve-sparing aortic root replacement in acute type A dissection is currently the subject of intense debate, and the evidence reported in the literature is sparse. Here we report on our experience on valve sparing aortic root replacement inpatients with acute type A dissection.

Methods From August 1995 to November 2000, 30 patients with acute type A dissection received valve-sparing aortic root replacement. Two different techniques were performed: the "remodeling" technique, first described by Yacoub in 1983 (8 patients) and the "reimplantation" technique, initially described by David and Feindel, in 1992 (22 patients). Endpoints of the study were early and late mortality, as well as aortic valve-related complications and reoperations.

Results The mean follow-up time was 22.6±15.4 months. The overall 30 day mortality was 17% (5/29) and the late mortality 4% (1/24). During the observation period, 4 patients had to be reoperated (n=3) for acute aortic valve regurgitation after aortic root remodeling and for acute aortic valve endocarditis (n=1) after aortic root reimplantation. In the 3 patients with acute aortic valve regurgitation, symptoms occurred 44, 24, and 17 months after the initial operation in these patients. Intraoperatively prolapsing aortic leaflets because of commissural detachment was found in all 3 cases. In all other patients the latest echocardiographic follow-up examination revealed freedom from aortic regugitation higher than grade 1.

Conclusions The high failure rate of aortic root remodeling inpatients with acute type A aortic dissection is discouraging. Whether this technique should be applied in acute type A aortic dissection is questionable. In contrast, aortic root reimplantation lead to favorable midterm outcome. Thus, we recommend consideration of this technique for surgical treatment of patients with acute type A aortic dissection.

Key Words: aneurysm • cardiovascular diseases • complications • valves