Stentless valves for bicuspid and tricuspid aortic valve disease

Abstract

ObjectiveTo determine long-term survival and reoperation rate in patients with a bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) and patients with a tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) after stentless aortic valve replacement (AVR)/aortic root replacement (ARR).MethodsBetween 1992 and 2014, 1293 patients underwent first AVR/ARR with a stentless aortic valve using the modified inclusion operating technique, including 741 patients with a TAV and 552 with a BAV. Using propensity scoring with 26 variables, 330 matched pairs were identified with AVR with or without ascending aorta/arch replacement. Data were obtained through chart review, surveys, and the National Death Index.ResultsPatient demographics were similar in the propensity score–matched groups. Both groups had similar cardiopulmonary bypass, cross-clamp, and hypothermia circulatory arrest times, cerebral protection strategies, and rate of aortic arch replacement. The median size of implanted valves was similar (BAV: 27 mm [range, 25-29 mm] vs TAV: 27 mm [range, 25-27 mm]). Compared with the TAV group, the BAV group had a shorter hospital stay (6 days vs 7 days; P = .001) but similar 30-day mortality (1.8% vs 1.2%). The BAV group had better long-term (15-year) survival (46% vs 33%; P = .002) but a higher cumulative incidence of reoperation for structural valve deterioration (15-year: 15% vs 11%; P = .048). Cox proportional hazard analysis identified a BAV as a protective factor for long-term mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.71; 95% CI, 0.56-0.91; P = .006), but a risk factor for reoperation due to structural valve deterioration (HR, 1.4 [95% CI, 0.8-2.6; P = .27] in the matched cohort and 2.2 [95% CI, 1.3-3.7; P = .004] in the unmatched cohort).ConclusionsThe BAV patients had better long-term survival but a higher reoperation rate compared with TAV patients after stentless AVR. Our findings suggest caution in the use of bioprostheses for BAV patients.