Alexander Makkinejad, Joanna Hua, Kenneth R Hassler, Katelyn Monaghan, Karen Kim, Shinichi Fukuhara, Himanshu J Patel, Bo Yang
{"title":"Y-切口主动脉瓣环扩大术与传统主动脉瓣环扩大术的短期疗效比较。","authors":"Alexander Makkinejad, Joanna Hua, Kenneth R Hassler, Katelyn Monaghan, Karen Kim, Shinichi Fukuhara, Himanshu J Patel, Bo Yang","doi":"10.21037/acs-2023-aae-0102","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The short-term efficacy and safety of the Y-incision technique of aortic annular enlargement (AAE) has been established. We aimed to determine how the short-term outcomes of the Y-incision technique compared to traditional AAE techniques.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>From February 2011 to June 2022, 380 patients at the University of Michigan Hospital underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR) with AAE using either traditional annular enlargement techniques (Traditional group, n=270), including Nicks [63% (171/270)], Manouguian [34% (91/270)], and others [3% (8/270)], or the Y-incision technique (Y-incision group, n=110). Propensity score matching was performed by controlling for age, sex, body surface area (BSA), hypertension, diabetes, dialysis, chronic lung disease, stroke, prior cardiac surgery, primary indication, operative status, concomitant procedures, and prosthesis type, to generate a balanced cohort of 103 pairs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were no differences in demographics, comorbidities, primary indications of the operations, or concomitant procedures between the matched groups. The median native aortic annulus diameter, measured in the operating room, was 21 mm for both groups. Median prosthesis size was 23 in the Traditional group, and 27 in the Y-incision group (P<0.001). There were no differences in perioperative complications/outcomes between the matched groups, including operative mortality, which was 3.9% (8/206) overall. Short-term survival was similar between the groups on Kaplan-Meier analysis; one-year survival was 95% in the Traditional group, and 97% in the Y-incision group (P=0.54). The Y-incision group had significantly lower mean aortic valve gradients (7 <i>vs.</i> 10 mmHg, P<0.001), larger aortic valve areas (2.2 <i>vs.</i> 1.8 cm<sup>2</sup>, P=0.007), and less moderate/severe patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) (5.5% <i>vs.</i> 23%, P=0.039) on one-year follow-up echocardiography.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The Y-incision technique was as safe and more effective in enlarging the aortic annulus and upsizing the prosthetic valve than the traditional techniques of AAE in AVR for small aortic annuli.</p>","PeriodicalId":8067,"journal":{"name":"Annals of cardiothoracic surgery","volume":"13 3","pages":"255-265"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11148761/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of the short-term outcomes between Y-incision aortic annular enlargement and traditional aortic annular enlargement techniques.\",\"authors\":\"Alexander Makkinejad, Joanna Hua, Kenneth R Hassler, Katelyn Monaghan, Karen Kim, Shinichi Fukuhara, Himanshu J Patel, Bo Yang\",\"doi\":\"10.21037/acs-2023-aae-0102\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The short-term efficacy and safety of the Y-incision technique of aortic annular enlargement (AAE) has been established. We aimed to determine how the short-term outcomes of the Y-incision technique compared to traditional AAE techniques.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>From February 2011 to June 2022, 380 patients at the University of Michigan Hospital underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR) with AAE using either traditional annular enlargement techniques (Traditional group, n=270), including Nicks [63% (171/270)], Manouguian [34% (91/270)], and others [3% (8/270)], or the Y-incision technique (Y-incision group, n=110). Propensity score matching was performed by controlling for age, sex, body surface area (BSA), hypertension, diabetes, dialysis, chronic lung disease, stroke, prior cardiac surgery, primary indication, operative status, concomitant procedures, and prosthesis type, to generate a balanced cohort of 103 pairs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were no differences in demographics, comorbidities, primary indications of the operations, or concomitant procedures between the matched groups. The median native aortic annulus diameter, measured in the operating room, was 21 mm for both groups. Median prosthesis size was 23 in the Traditional group, and 27 in the Y-incision group (P<0.001). There were no differences in perioperative complications/outcomes between the matched groups, including operative mortality, which was 3.9% (8/206) overall. Short-term survival was similar between the groups on Kaplan-Meier analysis; one-year survival was 95% in the Traditional group, and 97% in the Y-incision group (P=0.54). The Y-incision group had significantly lower mean aortic valve gradients (7 <i>vs.</i> 10 mmHg, P<0.001), larger aortic valve areas (2.2 <i>vs.</i> 1.8 cm<sup>2</sup>, P=0.007), and less moderate/severe patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) (5.5% <i>vs.</i> 23%, P=0.039) on one-year follow-up echocardiography.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The Y-incision technique was as safe and more effective in enlarging the aortic annulus and upsizing the prosthetic valve than the traditional techniques of AAE in AVR for small aortic annuli.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8067,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of cardiothoracic surgery\",\"volume\":\"13 3\",\"pages\":\"255-265\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11148761/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of cardiothoracic surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21037/acs-2023-aae-0102\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/12 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of cardiothoracic surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21037/acs-2023-aae-0102","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:Y型切口技术治疗主动脉瓣环扩大(AAE)的短期疗效和安全性已经得到证实。我们旨在确定 Y 切口技术与传统 AAE 技术相比的短期疗效:2011年2月至2022年6月,密歇根大学医院的380名患者接受了主动脉瓣置换术(AVR),采用传统的瓣环扩大技术(传统组,n=270),包括Nicks[63% (171/270)]、Manouguian[34% (91/270)]和其他[3% (8/270)],或Y-切口技术(Y-切口组,n=110)。通过控制年龄、性别、体表面积(BSA)、高血压、糖尿病、透析、慢性肺病、中风、既往心脏手术、主要适应症、手术状态、伴随手术和假体类型,进行倾向得分匹配,以产生一个由 103 对患者组成的平衡队列:结果:配对组之间在人口统计学、合并症、手术的主要适应症或并发症方面没有差异。两组患者在手术室测量的原生主动脉瓣环直径中位数均为 21 毫米。传统组的假体中位尺寸为23,Y-切口组为27(Pvs.10 mmHg,Pvs.1.8 cm2,P=0.007),一年随访超声心动图显示中度/重度患者-假体不匹配(PPM)较少(5.5% vs. 23%,P=0.039):结论:与传统的小主动脉瓣环主动脉瓣置换术(AVE)相比,Y-切口技术在扩大主动脉瓣环和增大人工瓣膜方面同样安全有效。
Comparison of the short-term outcomes between Y-incision aortic annular enlargement and traditional aortic annular enlargement techniques.
Background: The short-term efficacy and safety of the Y-incision technique of aortic annular enlargement (AAE) has been established. We aimed to determine how the short-term outcomes of the Y-incision technique compared to traditional AAE techniques.
Methods: From February 2011 to June 2022, 380 patients at the University of Michigan Hospital underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR) with AAE using either traditional annular enlargement techniques (Traditional group, n=270), including Nicks [63% (171/270)], Manouguian [34% (91/270)], and others [3% (8/270)], or the Y-incision technique (Y-incision group, n=110). Propensity score matching was performed by controlling for age, sex, body surface area (BSA), hypertension, diabetes, dialysis, chronic lung disease, stroke, prior cardiac surgery, primary indication, operative status, concomitant procedures, and prosthesis type, to generate a balanced cohort of 103 pairs.
Results: There were no differences in demographics, comorbidities, primary indications of the operations, or concomitant procedures between the matched groups. The median native aortic annulus diameter, measured in the operating room, was 21 mm for both groups. Median prosthesis size was 23 in the Traditional group, and 27 in the Y-incision group (P<0.001). There were no differences in perioperative complications/outcomes between the matched groups, including operative mortality, which was 3.9% (8/206) overall. Short-term survival was similar between the groups on Kaplan-Meier analysis; one-year survival was 95% in the Traditional group, and 97% in the Y-incision group (P=0.54). The Y-incision group had significantly lower mean aortic valve gradients (7 vs. 10 mmHg, P<0.001), larger aortic valve areas (2.2 vs. 1.8 cm2, P=0.007), and less moderate/severe patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) (5.5% vs. 23%, P=0.039) on one-year follow-up echocardiography.
Conclusions: The Y-incision technique was as safe and more effective in enlarging the aortic annulus and upsizing the prosthetic valve than the traditional techniques of AAE in AVR for small aortic annuli.