Advertisement

Aortic Root Enlargement

  • A. Parsee
  • J. PriceEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

The goal of aortic valve replacement (AVR) for aortic stenosis is to relieve transvalvular gradients in order to increase survival and improve symptoms. Occasionally however, the prosthesis that is accommodated by the native aortic annulus may not in fact result in the absence of significant gradients. When the aortic annulus is small, it may not accommodate a prosthesis that will provide an optimal effective orifice area (EOA) relative to the patient’s body size, and a situation referred to as patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) will result if no other surgical techniques are employed to implant a larger valve.

Keywords

Effective orifice area Patient-prosthesis mismatch Nicks procedure Manouguian procedure Aortotomy Konno-Rastan aortoventriculoplasty 

References

  1. 1.
    Schwarz F, Baumann P, Manthey J, et al. The effect of aortic valve replacement on survival. Circulation. 1982;66:1105–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG. Prosthesis-patient mismatch: definition, clinical impact, and prevention. Heart. 2006;92:1022–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Garcia D, Pibarot P, Landry C, Allard A, Chayer B, Dumesnil JG, Durand LG. Estimation of aortic valve effective orifice area by Doppler echocardiography: effects of valve inflow shape and flow rate. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2004;17:756–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Del Rizzo DF, Goldman BS, Christakis GT, David TE. Hemodynamic benefits of the Toronto stentless valve. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1996;112:1431–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG. Hemodynamic and clinical impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch in the aortic valve position and its prevention. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;36:1131–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG, Lemieux M, Cartier P, Métras J, Durand LG. Impact of prosthesis patient mismatch on hemodynamic and symptomatic status, morbidity and mortality after aortic valve replacement with a bioprosthetic heart valve. J Heart Valve Dis. 1998;7:211–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Price J, Toeg H, Lam BK, Lapierre H, Mesana TG, Ruel M. The impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch after aortic valve replacement varies according to age at operation. Heart. 2014;100:1099–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rahimtoola SH. The problem of valve prosthesis-patient mismatch. Circulation. 1978;58:20–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jamieson WR, Ye J, Higgins J, et al. Effect of prosthesis-patient mismatch on long-term survival with aortic valve replacement: assessment to 15 years. Ann Thorac Surg. 2010;89:51–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Howell NJ, Keogh BE, Ray D, et al. Patient-prosthesis mismatch in patients with aortic stenosis undergoing isolated aortic valve replacement does not affect survival. Ann Thorac Surg. 2010;89:60–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Moon MR, Lawton JS, Moazami N, Munfakh NA, Pasque MK, Damiano RJ Jr. POINT: prosthesis-patient mismatch does not affect survival for patients greater than 70 years of age undergoing bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2009;137:278–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Price J, Lapierre H, Ressler L, Lam BK, Mesana TG, Ruel M. Prosthesis-patient mismatch is less frequent and more clinically indolent in patients operated for aortic insufficiency. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2009 Sep;138:639–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mohty D, Dumesnil JG, Echahidi N, et al. Impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch on long-term survival after aortic valve replacement: influence of age, obesity, and left ventricular dysfunction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;53:39–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chen J, Lin Y, Kang B, Wang Z. Indexed effective orifice area is a significant predictor of higher mid- and long-term mortality rates following aortic valve replacement in patients with prosthesis-patient mismatch. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2014;45:234–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nicks R, Cartmill T, Bernstein L. Hypoplasia of the aortic root. The problem of aortic valve replacement. Thorax. 1970;25:339–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Feindel CM. Aortic root enlargement in the adult. Oper Tech Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2006;11:2–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Doty DB, Doty JR, editors. Cardiac surgery: operative technique, Left ventricular outflow tract obstruction, vol. 1. 2nd ed. Elsevier: Philadelphia, PA; 2012.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Manouguian S, Seybold-Epting W. Patch enlargement of the aortic valve ring by extending the aortic incision into the anterior mitral leaflet. New operative technique. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1979;78:402–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nunez L, Aguado MG, Pinto AG, Larrea JL. Enlargement of the aortic annulus by resecting the commissure between the left and noncoronary cusps. Tex Heart Inst J. 1983;10:301–3.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Konno S, Imai Y, Iida Y, Nakajima M, Tatsuno K. A new method for prosthetic valve replacement in congenital aortic stenosis associated with hypoplasia of the aortic valve ring. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1975;70:909–17.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rastan H, Koncz J. Aortoventriculoplasty: a new technique for the treatment of left ventricular outflow tract obstruction. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1976;71:920–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Losenno KL, Gelinas JJ, Johnson M, Chu MW. Defining the efficacy of aortic root enlargement procedures: a comparative analysis of surgical techniques. Can J Cardiol. 2013;29:434–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kulik A, Al-Saigh M, Chan V, Masters RG, Bédard P, Lam BK, Rubens FD, Hendry PJ, Mesana TG, Ruel M. Enlargement of the small aortic root during aortic valve replacement: is there a benefit? Ann Thorac Surg. 2008;85:94–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Castro LJ, Arcidi JM Jr, Fisher AL, Gaudiani VA. Routine enlargement of the small aortic root: a preventive strategy to minimize mismatch. Ann Thorac Surg. 2002;74:31–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Peterson MD, Borger MA, Feindel CM, David TE. Aortic annular enlargement during aortic valve replacement: improving results with time. Ann Thorac Surg. 2007;83:2044–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Dhareshwar J, Sundt TM. 3rd, Dearani JA, Schaff HV, cook DJ, Orszulak TA. Aortic root enlargement: what are the operative risks? J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2007;134:916–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ghavidel AA, Omrani G, Chitsazan M, Totonchi Z, Givtaj N. Long-term results of aortic valve replacement with posterior root enlargement. Asian Cardiovasc Thorac Ann. 2014;22:1059–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sankar NM, Rajan S, Kalyan Singh RK, et al. Enlargement of small aortic annulus by modified Manougian technique. Asian Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 1999;7:282–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Aydogan H, Akay H, Orhan G, et al. Early and midterm results of aortic annular enlargement. Asian Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 1999;7:182–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Imanaka K, Takamoto S, Furuse A. Mitral regurgitation late after Manouguian’s annulus enlargement and aortic valve replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1998;115:727–0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kawachi Y, Tominaga R, Tokunaga K. Eleven-year follow-up study of aortic or aortic-mitral annulus-enlarging procedure by Manouguian’s technique. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1992;104:1259–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Robert Larner, M.D. College of Medicine at The University of VermontBurlingtonUSA
  2. 2.University of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations