• Rita Karianna Milewski, Andreas Habertheuer, Joseph E Bavaria, Stephanie Fuller, Nimesh D Desai, Wilson Y Szeto, Varun Korutla, and Prashanth Vallabhajosyula.
• Department of Surgery, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa.
• J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2019 Feb 1; 157 (2): 714-725.

ObjectiveLong-term outcomes of prosthetic aortic valve/root replacement in patients aged 30 years or younger are not well understood. We report our single institutional experience in this young cohort.MethodsFrom 1998 to 2016, 99 patients (age range, 16-30 years) underwent aortic valve replacement (n = 57), aortic valve replacement and supracoronary ascending aorta replacement (n = 6), or aortic root replacement (n = 36). A prospectively maintained aortic valve database was retrospectively reviewed to complete longitudinal functional and clinical data. Total follow-up was 493 patient years.ResultsSurgical indications included primary stenosis/insufficiency (52% [n = 51]), Marfan syndrome (10% [n = 10]), and endocarditis (33.3% [n = 33]). Fifty-eight patients (59%) underwent mechanical valve replacement, with 41 patients (41%) receiving a biologic/bioprosthetic valve. Twenty-five patients underwent aortic valve reoperation after index procedure with following indications: prosthesis-patient mismatch 1.0% (n = 1), prosthetic valve degeneration/dysfunction 10% (n = 10), connective tissue 2% (n = 2), and endocarditis 12% (n = 12). Mortality (30-day/in-hospital) and stroke rate were 3.0% (n = 3) and 1% (n = 1), respectively. One-, 5-, and 10-year actuarial freedom from aortic valve reoperation by valve type was 89.1%, 84.6%, and 69.4% for the Mechanical Valve group and 89.6%, 70.9%, and 57.6% for the Biologic/Bioprosthetic Valve group, respectively (log rank P = .279). Replacement valve size ≤21 mm was a significant risk factor for reoperation, and was associated with progression of mean aortic valve transvalvular gradients over follow-up. Valve type had no effect.ConclusionsThe choice of mechanical versus biologic/bioprosthetic valve does not affect freedom from reoperation or survival rates in this young cohort during mid- to long-term follow-up. Smaller aortic valve replacement size (≤21 mm) is a significant risk factor for reoperation and progression of mean aortic valve gradients.Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Inc.

29 keywords...

hide…