Composite valve graft versus separate aortic valve and ascending aortic replacement.
To ascertain if the operative technique has any influence on outcome, the surgical results after aortic root replacement using either a composite valve graft (CVG) or a separate graft and valve (SVG) were analyzed. Eighty-four patients received a CVG, and 36 had SVG replacement. The operative mortality rate was 6% for patients receiving a CVG and 3% for SVG replacement (nonsignificant). Follow-up extended to 21 years (mean 124 +/- 45 months). The type of the procedure (SVG versus CVG) was not a significant predictor of in-hospital mortality, length of hospital stay, subsequent root dilatation (SVG), anastomotic dehiscence and subsequent surgery. The early and long-term results after CVG or SVG were similar, which reflects proper patient selection.
Brandt
Michael
M
Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany. mbrandt@kielheart.uni-kiel.de
Abdelkerim
Someia
S
Clemm
Susanne
S
Böning
Andreas
A
Cremer
Jochen
J
D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D001011:Aorta; D017545:Aortic Aneurysm, Thoracic / Q000601:surgery; D001021:Aortic Valve; D001807:Blood Vessel Prosthesis; D019917:Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation / Q000379:methods*; D005260:Female; D006349:Heart Valve Diseases / Q000601:surgery; D006350:Heart Valve Prosthesis; D019918:Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation / Q000379:methods*; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D016896:Treatment Outcome