Elsevier

International Journal of Cardiology

Volume 296, 1 December 2019, Pages 38-42
International Journal of Cardiology

Modified Bentall procedure: Mechanical vs biological valved conduits in patients older than 65 years

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2019.07.053Get rights and content

Highlights

  • The type of valved conduit does not affect survival in patients ≥65 years.

  • Adverse events incidence not influenced by the conduit type in patients ≥65 years.

  • Choice of the valve conduit should be patient-tailored even in patients ≥65 years.

Abstract

Background

The modified Bentall procedure is still the treatment of choice for patients requiring combined replacement of the ascending aorta and aortic valve. We compared the long-term outcome of patients >65 years of age undergoing Bentall procedure with biological vs mechanical valved conduits in a multi institutional study.

Methods

A total of 282 patients, undergoing a Bentall operation (January 1994–May 2015), with a biological (Group 1, 173 patients) or a mechanical (Group 2, 109 patients) conduit were reviewed, the primary outcome being analysis of late survival and freedom from major adverse events.

Results

Hospital mortality was 5% (9 patients) and 2% (2 patients) for Group 1 and Group 2 (p = 0.2). Median follow-up was 77 months (range Q1–Q3: 49–111) for Group 1 vs 107 months (range Q1–Q3: 63–145) for Group 2 (p < 0.001). A not statistically significant advantage in late survival was found in patients receiving mechanical valved conduits (36% for Group 1 vs 58% for Group 2 at 12 years; p = 0.09), although freedom from major adverse events was similar between the 2 groups (33% in Group 1 vs 50% in Group 2 at 12 years; p = 0.3).

Conclusions

In conclusion, mechanical-valved conduits employed for the modified Bentall procedure show a trend towards an improved late survival in patients ≥65 years of age and particularly in those between 65 and 75 years, despite a higher incidence of major adverse events. Our results indicate the need for specific guidelines to better define the ideal age limit for each type of valved conduit.

Introduction

The first successful simultaneous replacement of the entire ascending aorta and aortic valve was reported by Wheat et al. in 1964 [1]. Subsequently, Bentall and De Bono in 1968 described a more radical technique using a composite conduit [2]; the Bentall procedure and its subsequent modification by Kouchoukos et al. [3] has become for many years the procedure of choice for patients requiring combined replacement of the aortic valve and ascending aorta regardless of the underlying pathology. Recently, after the seminal paper by David and Feindel [4] the widespread diffusion of aortic valve-sparing operations in patients with annuloaortic ectasia has reduced the number of suitable candidates for a modified Bentall procedure (MBP). Nevertheless, due to increased life expectancy, a MBP may be still required in a fairly large number of elderly patients with aortic valve disease and ascending aorta pathology. In an aging population biological prostheses are preferred because of avoidance of long-term anticoagulation and a longer expected durability [[5], [6], [7]]; furthermore, for the same reason, even in younger patients, tissue valves with proven long-term durability may be also indicated, especially considering the potential future diffusion of valve-in-valve procedures [[8], [9], [10]].

In patients requiring a MBP, mechanical conduits have demonstrated excellent long-term results particularly in freedom from prosthesis-related events and stability of the procedure [[11], [12], [13], [14], [15]]; however, biological conduits are currently increasingly used being considered particularly suitable for elderly patients requiring a MBP [[16], [17], [18], [19]]. There are however few studies comparing the results of mechanical versus biological conduits and few data are available defining the ideal age limit to prefer one over the other. To specifically address this issue we have compared the long-term performance of mechanical versus biological conduits in patients ≥65 years of age undergoing a MBP.

Section snippets

Material and methods

We have retrospectively reviewed 282 patients ≥65 years of age undergoing a MBP (January 1994–May 2015) with a biological (Group 1, 173 patients) or a mechanical (Group 2, 109 patients) conduit at 4 Italian institutions. Institutional approval for the study was obtained (3416/2011, prot. 64168) and patient informed consent was waived due to its retrospective nature.

The main indication for surgery was aortic valve disease associated with ascending aorta or root dilatation; patients with acute or

Surgical data

Almost all operations were performed in each centre by the senior surgeon (AP, RS, UB, UL). In Group 1 the following conduits were used: hand-sewn composite conduits containing a Perimount Magna pericardial bioprosthesis (Edwards Lifesciences Corp., Irvine, CA) in 110 patients or a Mosaic porcine bioprosthesis (Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN) in 18; pre-formed stentless porcine aortic roots in 23 (Medtronic Freestyle in 17 and Edwards Prima in 6) and BioValsalva conduits (Vascutek Terumo,

Discussion

In patients requiring simultaneous replacement of the aortic valve and ascending aorta the MBP still represents the treatment of choice. Although mechanical conduits have been associated with gratifying results even in the long-term [[11], [12], [13], [14], [15]], biological conduits are currently gaining widespread acceptance due to increasing age of patients referred for surgery [16,17,19,23,24]. The so called ‘bio Bentall’ is preferred in elderly patients, usually >75 years since in them

Conclusions

In conclusion, among patients ≥65 years of age, and particularly in those between 65 and 75 years, the MBP represents a valid surgical option, with satisfactory early and long-term results. Mechanical valved conduits are associated with a trend towards better late survival than biological valved conduits; however, patients receiving mechanical devices are more likely to experience thromboembolic and bleeding complications. In this specific subset a bio Bentall procedure may also appear

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors have not conflict of interest to declare.

References (34)

  • T. Tsunekawa et al.

    Composite valve graft replacement of the aortic root: twenty-seven years of experience at one Japanese center

    Ann. Thorac. Surg.

    (2008)
  • M.A. Zafar et al.

    Are thromboembolic and bleeding complications a drawback for composite aortic root replacement

    Ann. Thorac. Surg.

    (2012)
  • M.W. Wheat et al.

    Successful replacement of the entire ascending aorta and aortic valve

    J. Am. Med. Assoc.

    (1964)
  • H. Bentall et al.

    A technique for complete replacement of the ascending aorta

    Thorax

    (1968)
  • T.L. Leiria et al.

    Antithrombotic therapies in patients with prosthetic heart valves: guidelines translated for the clinician

    J. Thromb. Thrombolysis

    (2011)
  • M. Celiento et al.

    Excellent durability of the Mosaic porcine aortic bioprosthesis at extended follow up

    J Heart Valve Dis

    (2018)
  • H. Baumgartner et al.

    2017 ESC/EACTS guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease

    Eur. Heart J.

    (2018)
  • Cited by (0)

    The authors take responsibility for all aspects of the reliability and freedom from bias of the data presented and their discussed interpretation.

    View full text