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 Author home page(s): John G. Byrne Alexandros N. Karavas Tomislav Mihaljevic Bradley J. Phillips Sary F. Aranki James D. Rawn Lawrence H. Cohn Permission Requests Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Byrne, J. G. Articles by Cohn, L. H. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Byrne, J. G. Articles by Cohn, L. H. Related Collections Valve disease

Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2003;23:305-310
© 2003 Elsevier Science NL

Biological vs. mechanical aortic root replacement

Division of Cardiac Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA 02115, USA

Received 10 July 2002; received in revised form 28 November 2002; accepted 4 December 2002.

^* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-617-732-7678; fax: +1-617-732-6559
e-mail: jbyrne{at}partners.org

Objectives: Although age and co-existing coronary disease are major determining factors when deciding valve choice (mechanical vs. biological) in simple aortic valve replacement, no studies have documented selection criterion for biological (BIO) vs. mechanical (MECH) aortic root prosthesis. Methods: Two hundred and twenty-one consecutive patients underwent elective aortic root replacement with either BIO (homograft, n=111, Freestyle^®, n=25) or MECH composite grafts (n=85). Median age in BIO was 53 years and in MECH 54 years (P=NS). Groups were similar in gender, NYHA class and ejection fraction (BIO, EF=59% vs. MECH, EF=55%), but the need for concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) did differ between groups (MECH=35% vs. BIO=17%, P=0.003). Mean follow-up was 42±28 months for mortality and 39±28 months for morbidity. Results: Full root replacement was performed in 213 patients (96%) and hemi-root in eight (4%). The most common underlying etiologies were annulo-aortic ectasia (n=82, 37%), calcified-degenerative (n=73, 33%) and bicuspid/congenital aortic valve disease (n=39, 18%). Operative mortality was 1.5% for BIO and 2.4% for MECH (P=0.5). By univariate analysis there was a trend towards greater 5-year survival in BIO (92.4% vs. 88.2%, P=0.068). By multivariate analysis, increasing age (HR=2.4, P=0.003), previous valve replacement (HR=4.7, P=0.024), concomitant CABG (HR=3.7, P=0.032), and perioperative stroke (HR=9.9, P=0.0005) were all independent predictors of late death. The 5-year freedom from valve-related complications was similar in both groups (BIO=93% vs. MECH=86%, P=0.5). Conclusions: Elective aortic root replacement is an exceedingly safe operation. At mean follow-up of 4 years, there is no meaningful difference in early or mid term valve-related results between BIO and MECH aortic root replacement. Continued evaluation for late valve-related complications in this cohort will be necessary to determine the advantages, if any, of one prosthesis over the other.

Key Words: Aortic root replacement • Valve choice

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. S. Kalkat, M.-B. Edwards, K. M. Taylor, and R. S. Bonser Composite Aortic Valve Graft Replacement: Mortality Outcomes in a National Registry Circulation, September 11, 2007; 116(11_suppl): I-301 - I-306. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Stalder, S. Staffelbach, F. F. Immer, L. Englberger, P. A. Berdat, F. S. Eckstein, and T. P. Carrel Aortic Root Replacement Does Not Affect Outcome and Quality of Life Ann. Thorac. Surg., September 1, 2007; 84(3): 775 - 781. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. Lima, G. C. Hughes, A. Lemaire, J. Jaggers, D. D. Glower, and W. G. Wolfe Short-Term and Intermediate-Term Outcomes of Aortic Root Replacement with St. Jude Mechanical Conduits and Aortic Allografts Ann. Thorac. Surg., August 1, 2006; 82(2): 579 - 585. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. C. Halstead, D. Spielvogel, D. M. Meier, S. Rinke, C. Bodian, R. Malekan, M. A. Ergin, and R. B. Griepp Composite aortic root replacement in acute type A dissection: time to rethink the indications? Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg., April 1, 2005; 27(4): 626 - 632. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. G. Byrne, A. N. Karavas, M. Leacche, D. Unic, J. D. Rawn, G. S. Couper, T. Mihaljevic, R. J. Rizzo, S. F. Aranki, and L. H. Cohn Impact of Concomitant Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting on Hospital Survival After Aortic Root Replacement Ann. Thorac. Surg., February 1, 2005; 79(2): 511 - 516. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. G. Gleason, T. E. David, J. S. Coselli, J. W. Hammon Jr, and J. E. Bavaria St. Jude Medical Toronto biologic aortic root prosthesis: Early FDA phase II IDE study results Ann. Thorac. Surg., September 1, 2004; 78(3): 786 - 793. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. Sioris, T. E. David, J. Ivanov, S. Armstrong, and C. M. Feindel Clinical outcomes after separate and composite replacement of the aortic valve and ascending aorta J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., August 1, 2004; 128(2): 260 - 265. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]