Alexander Makkinejad, Xiaoting Wu, Karen Kim, Shinichi Fukuhara, Himanshu Patel, Gorav Ailawadi, Bo Yang
{"title":"先前改良纳入后重做主动脉根部置换与全主动脉根部置换","authors":"Alexander Makkinejad, Xiaoting Wu, Karen Kim, Shinichi Fukuhara, Himanshu Patel, Gorav Ailawadi, Bo Yang","doi":"10.1155/jocs/3525884","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n <p><b>Background:</b> There is currently little data in the literature evaluating the long-term outcomes of reoperative aortic root replacement after previous aortic root replacement, and there are no studies comparing how these outcomes differ based on the approach of the initial aortic root replacement. Our objective was to determine the outcomes of reoperative aortic root replacement following prior aortic root replacement with either the total root or inclusion root techniques.</p>\n <p><b>Methods:</b> This study was a retrospective cohort analysis of 260 patients who underwent redo aortic root replacement from September 1994 to July 2024. Previous root replacements were done with the total root technique in 90 patients and inclusion root technique in 170 patients. The primary outcomes of the study were perioperative complications, operative mortality, and late survival.</p>\n <p><b>Results:</b> The median age of the entire cohort was 57 years, and 79% were males. The prior total root group was younger, had more Marfan syndrome, and more concomitant ascending/arch replacement. Perioperatively, the groups had similar recovery times and complication rates, though there was more postoperative sepsis in the prior total root group (5.6% vs. 0.6%), Operative mortality was 4.2% in the whole cohort; 5.6% in the total root group versus 3.5% in the inclusion root group, <i>p</i> = 0.44. Survival at 5 and 10 years was 84% and 70% in the whole cohort, respectively. The 5-year survival was similar between the groups at 81% in the total root group and 85% in the inclusion root group, <i>p</i> = 0.82. Cox proportional hazards regression showed infection as a primary indication and was a significant risk factor for late mortality (hazard ratio 2.55 [95% CI: 1.45, 4.50], <i>p</i> = 0.001), as was diabetes (HR: 2.00 [95% CI: 1.04, 3.82], <i>p</i> = 0.037), but previous total root versus inclusion root procedure was not (hazard ratio 1.10 [95% CI: 0.58, 2.09], <i>p</i> = 0.77).</p>\n <p><b>Conclusions:</b> Reoperative aortic root replacement following prior root replacement can be performed with good short- and long-term outcomes after either total root or inclusion root replacement.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":15367,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cardiac Surgery","volume":"2024 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1155/jocs/3525884","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Redo Aortic Root Replacement After Prior Modified Inclusion Versus Total Aortic Root Replacement\",\"authors\":\"Alexander Makkinejad, Xiaoting Wu, Karen Kim, Shinichi Fukuhara, Himanshu Patel, Gorav Ailawadi, Bo Yang\",\"doi\":\"10.1155/jocs/3525884\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n <p><b>Background:</b> There is currently little data in the literature evaluating the long-term outcomes of reoperative aortic root replacement after previous aortic root replacement, and there are no studies comparing how these outcomes differ based on the approach of the initial aortic root replacement. Our objective was to determine the outcomes of reoperative aortic root replacement following prior aortic root replacement with either the total root or inclusion root techniques.</p>\\n <p><b>Methods:</b> This study was a retrospective cohort analysis of 260 patients who underwent redo aortic root replacement from September 1994 to July 2024. Previous root replacements were done with the total root technique in 90 patients and inclusion root technique in 170 patients. The primary outcomes of the study were perioperative complications, operative mortality, and late survival.</p>\\n <p><b>Results:</b> The median age of the entire cohort was 57 years, and 79% were males. The prior total root group was younger, had more Marfan syndrome, and more concomitant ascending/arch replacement. Perioperatively, the groups had similar recovery times and complication rates, though there was more postoperative sepsis in the prior total root group (5.6% vs. 0.6%), Operative mortality was 4.2% in the whole cohort; 5.6% in the total root group versus 3.5% in the inclusion root group, <i>p</i> = 0.44. Survival at 5 and 10 years was 84% and 70% in the whole cohort, respectively. The 5-year survival was similar between the groups at 81% in the total root group and 85% in the inclusion root group, <i>p</i> = 0.82. Cox proportional hazards regression showed infection as a primary indication and was a significant risk factor for late mortality (hazard ratio 2.55 [95% CI: 1.45, 4.50], <i>p</i> = 0.001), as was diabetes (HR: 2.00 [95% CI: 1.04, 3.82], <i>p</i> = 0.037), but previous total root versus inclusion root procedure was not (hazard ratio 1.10 [95% CI: 0.58, 2.09], <i>p</i> = 0.77).</p>\\n <p><b>Conclusions:</b> Reoperative aortic root replacement following prior root replacement can be performed with good short- and long-term outcomes after either total root or inclusion root replacement.</p>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15367,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Cardiac Surgery\",\"volume\":\"2024 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1155/jocs/3525884\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Cardiac Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/jocs/3525884\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cardiac Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/jocs/3525884","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:目前文献中很少有评价既往主动脉根置换术后再手术主动脉根置换术的长期结果的资料,也没有研究比较不同初始主动脉根置换术入路对这些结果的影响。我们的目的是确定采用全根或包涵根技术进行主动脉根置换术后再手术主动脉根置换术的结果。方法:本研究对1994年9月至2024年7月260例重做主动脉根置换术患者进行回顾性队列分析。90例患者采用全根技术,170例患者采用包涵根技术。该研究的主要结果是围手术期并发症、手术死亡率和晚期生存率。结果:整个队列的中位年龄为57岁,79%为男性。先前的全根组更年轻,有更多的马凡氏综合征,更多的伴随升/弓置换。围手术期,两组的恢复时间和并发症发生率相似,尽管先前全根组的术后脓毒症发生率更高(5.6%比0.6%),但整个队列的手术死亡率为4.2%;全根组为5.6%,包根组为3.5%,p = 0.44。整个队列的5年和10年生存率分别为84%和70%。两组间的5年生存率相似,全根组为81%,包根组为85%,p = 0.82。Cox比例风险回归显示感染是主要适应症,是晚期死亡的重要危险因素(风险比2.55 [95% CI: 1.45, 4.50], p = 0.001),糖尿病也是如此(风险比:2.00 [95% CI: 1.04, 3.82], p = 0.037),但之前的全根与包根手术不是(风险比1.10 [95% CI: 0.58, 2.09], p = 0.77)。结论:无论是全根置换术还是包涵根置换术,再手术主动脉根置换术均可获得良好的短期和长期疗效。
Redo Aortic Root Replacement After Prior Modified Inclusion Versus Total Aortic Root Replacement
Background: There is currently little data in the literature evaluating the long-term outcomes of reoperative aortic root replacement after previous aortic root replacement, and there are no studies comparing how these outcomes differ based on the approach of the initial aortic root replacement. Our objective was to determine the outcomes of reoperative aortic root replacement following prior aortic root replacement with either the total root or inclusion root techniques.
Methods: This study was a retrospective cohort analysis of 260 patients who underwent redo aortic root replacement from September 1994 to July 2024. Previous root replacements were done with the total root technique in 90 patients and inclusion root technique in 170 patients. The primary outcomes of the study were perioperative complications, operative mortality, and late survival.
Results: The median age of the entire cohort was 57 years, and 79% were males. The prior total root group was younger, had more Marfan syndrome, and more concomitant ascending/arch replacement. Perioperatively, the groups had similar recovery times and complication rates, though there was more postoperative sepsis in the prior total root group (5.6% vs. 0.6%), Operative mortality was 4.2% in the whole cohort; 5.6% in the total root group versus 3.5% in the inclusion root group, p = 0.44. Survival at 5 and 10 years was 84% and 70% in the whole cohort, respectively. The 5-year survival was similar between the groups at 81% in the total root group and 85% in the inclusion root group, p = 0.82. Cox proportional hazards regression showed infection as a primary indication and was a significant risk factor for late mortality (hazard ratio 2.55 [95% CI: 1.45, 4.50], p = 0.001), as was diabetes (HR: 2.00 [95% CI: 1.04, 3.82], p = 0.037), but previous total root versus inclusion root procedure was not (hazard ratio 1.10 [95% CI: 0.58, 2.09], p = 0.77).
Conclusions: Reoperative aortic root replacement following prior root replacement can be performed with good short- and long-term outcomes after either total root or inclusion root replacement.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Cardiac Surgery (JCS) is a peer-reviewed journal devoted to contemporary surgical treatment of cardiac disease. Renown for its detailed "how to" methods, JCS''s well-illustrated, concise technical articles, critical reviews and commentaries are highly valued by dedicated readers worldwide.
With Editor-in-Chief Harold Lazar, MD and an internationally prominent editorial board, JCS continues its 20-year history as an important professional resource. Editorial coverage includes biologic support, mechanical cardiac assist and/or replacement and surgical techniques, and features current material on topics such as OPCAB surgery, stented and stentless valves, endovascular stent placement, atrial fibrillation, transplantation, percutaneous valve repair/replacement, left ventricular restoration surgery, immunobiology, and bridges to transplant and recovery.
In addition, special sections (Images in Cardiac Surgery, Cardiac Regeneration) and historical reviews stimulate reader interest. The journal also routinely publishes proceedings of important international symposia in a timely manner.