2024
Aortic valve performance after remodelling versus reimplantation in a propensity-matched comparison
GOFUS, Jan, Jan VOJACEK, Mikita KARALKO, Pavel ZACEK, Adrian KOLESAR et. al.Základní údaje
Originální název
Aortic valve performance after remodelling versus reimplantation in a propensity-matched comparison
Autoři
GOFUS, Jan (203 Česká republika), Jan VOJACEK (203 Česká republika), Mikita KARALKO, Pavel ZACEK (203 Česká republika), Adrian KOLESAR (203 Česká republika), Tomas TOPORCER (203 Česká republika), Martin URBAN (203 Česká republika), Filip GLAC (203 Česká republika), Stepan CERNY (203 Česká republika), Pavel HOMOLA (203 Česká republika), Jaroslav HLUBOCKY (203 Česká republika), Andrey SLAUTIN, Petr FILA (203 Česká republika, domácí), Daniela ŽÁKOVÁ (203 Česká republika, domácí), Jan ŠTĚRBA (203 Česká republika, domácí), Hiwad RASHID, Arnaud VAN LINDEN a Tomas HOLUBEC (203 Česká republika)
Vydání
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CARDIO-THORACIC SURGERY, CARY, OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC, 2024, 1010-7940
Další údaje
Jazyk
angličtina
Typ výsledku
Článek v odborném periodiku
Obor
30201 Cardiac and Cardiovascular systems
Stát vydavatele
Spojené státy
Utajení
není předmětem státního či obchodního tajemství
Odkazy
Impakt faktor
Impact factor: 3.400 v roce 2022
Organizační jednotka
Lékařská fakulta
UT WoS
001284515800001
Klíčová slova anglicky
Aortic valve repair; Valve-sparing root replacement; Aortic root aneurysm; Aortic regurgitation; Propensity-score matching
Příznaky
Mezinárodní význam, Recenzováno
Změněno: 19. 8. 2024 08:28, Mgr. Tereza Miškechová
Anotace
V originále
OBJECTIVES: Both aortic root remodelling and aortic valve (AV) reimplantation have been used for valve-sparing root replacement in patients with aortic root aneurysm with or without aortic regurgitation. There is no clear evidence to support one technique over the another. This study aimed to compare remodelling with basal ring annuloplasty versus reimplantation on a multicentre level with the use of propensity-score matching. METHODS: This was a retrospective international multicentre study of patients undergoing remodelling or reimplantation between 2010 and 2021. Twenty-three preoperative covariates (including root dimensions and valve characteristics) were used for propensity-score matching. Perioperative outcomes were analysed along with longer-term freedom from AV reoperation/reintervention and other major valve-related events. RESULTS: Throughout the study period, 297 patients underwent remodelling and 281 had reimplantation. Using propensity-score matching, 112 pairs were selected and further compared. We did not find a statistically significant difference in perioperative outcomes between the matched groups. Patients after remodelling had significantly higher reintervention risk than after reimplantation over the median follow-up of 6 years (P = 0.016). The remodelling technique (P = 0.02), need for decalcification (P = 0.03) and degree of immediate postoperative AV regurgitation (P < 0.001) were defined as independent risk factors for later AV reintervention. After exclusion of patients with worse than mild AV regurgitation immediately after repair, both techniques functioned comparably (P = 0.089). CONCLUSIONS: AV reimplantation was associated with better valve function in longer-term postoperatively than remodelling. If optimal immediate repair outcome was achieved, both techniques provided comparable AV function.