UCLA

OBJECTIVES: Aortic root surgery is transitioning to aortic valve sparing (AVS), but little is known about the relative early outcomes of AVS versus composite graft-valve replacement (CVR). This study assessed mortality differences for AVS versus CVR to guide future practice decisions. METHODS: From January 2000 to June 2011, 31 747 patients had aortic root replacement with AVS (n = 3585; 11%) or CVR (n = 28 162; 89%). The cohort of Overall patients was divided into two subgroups: high-risk patients (n = 20 356; 6% AVS) having age >75 years, endocarditis, aortic stenosis, dialysis, multiple valves, reoperation or emergency/salvage status, and the remaining low-risk patients (n = 11 388; 21% AVS). Using logistic regression analysis, outcomes were presented as unadjusted operative mortality (UOM), risk-adjusted operative mortality (AOM) and adjusted odds ratio (AOR) for mortality. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics for the Overall group (AVS versus CVR) were: mean age (52 vs 57 years), endocarditis (1 vs 11%), aortic stenosis (4 vs 36%), dialysis (1 vs 2%), multiple valves (7 vs 10%), reoperation (6 vs 17%) and emergency status (14 vs 12%) (all P < 0.0001). In high- and low-risk groups, baseline differences narrowed, and lower mortality was generally observed with AVS: (AVS versus CVR) UOM group Overall (4.5 vs 8.9%)*, group High-risk (10.5 vs 11.7%), group Low-risk (1.4 vs 3.1%)*; AOM group Overall (6.2 vs 8.6%), group High-risk (10.1 vs 11.7%), group Low-risk (2.2 vs 2.8%); AOR group Overall (0.59)*, group High-risk (0.62)*, group Low-risk (0.69). *P < 0.05. CONCLUSIONS: Relative risk-adjusted mortality seemed comparable with AVS versus CVR in low- and high-risk subgroups. These data support judicious expansion of aortic valve repair in patients having aortic root replacement.