Aortic valve-sparing operation versus Bentall and mechanical aortic valve replacement--midterm results.

Objectives: The primary aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate short-term (one-to-six months) and mid-term (six-to-forty-eight months) results of aortic valve-sparing procedures. The second endpoint was to compare the results with the group of patients undergoing mechanical aortic valve replacement during the same period.

Methods: Between April 2008 and May 2012 at our institution, we treated 76 patients either with ascending aorta/root aneurysm/dissection or with isolated aortic regurgitation. A total of seventy-six patients undergoing aortic valve surgery.

Results: Analyzed parameters were divided into two parts as function of time. In the first part, i.e. during hospitalization, the mortality, duration of hospitalization, duration of extra corporeal circulation (ECC), and duration of cardiac arrest (CA) were compared and assessed. In the second part, i.e. during monitoring of the patients after their discharge from hospital (one-to-six months, and six-to-forty-eight months), the grade of postoperative AR aimed mainly at the group of aortic valve-sparing operations (subgroups A1, A2, A3), postoperative peak gradient, presence of thromboembolic and bleeding complications, postoperative endocarditis and need for reoperation or hospitalization due to cardiac reasons were analyzed.

Conclusion: Based on our first experience, we believe that in spite of higher technical difficulty, the aortic valve-sparing operations can be possibly performed with the same or respectively lower rate of postoperative morbidity and mortality. Presented results show that compared with the aortic valve replacement, the aortic valve-sparing operation is a promising method, and an interesting therapeutic alternative for patients. After proper indications, we consider it to be a method of choice (Tab. 6, Fig. 7, Ref. 28).