Aortic Valve Repair Versus Replacement Associated With Durable Left Ventricular Assist Devices

Background. Aortic valve (AV) repair (AVr) using a central coaptation stitch or bioprosthetic AV replacement (AVR) are most commonly performed at the time of durable left ventricular assist device implant to address AV insufficiency (AI).Methods. Prospective data collection on 46 patients undergoing left ventricular assist device implant from 2007 through 2018 who received concomitant AVr (n = 40) or AVR (n = 6) was retrospectively analyzed to assess freedom from recurrent aortic insufficiency. Paired Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare echocardiographic findings. Mantel-Cox statistics were used to analyze survival.Results. For AVr, central coaptation led to a mean decrease in AI severity by 2.1 +/- 1.0 grades (P < .001). Three patients (7.5%) had recurrence of at least moderate AI by 3 years. In comparison, all patients in the AVR group had mild or less AI on subsequent followup. Success of AVr in downgrading AI severity was associated with a smaller aortic root diameter (P = .011) and sinotubular junction diameter (P = .003). An aortic root diameter greater than 3.5 cm was predictive of less improvement in AI severity compared with 3.5 cm or less (1.83 +/- 1.03 versus 2.47 +/- 0.80 grades of improvement; P = .038). Duration of cardiopulmonary bypass was 32 minutes longer and duration of aortic cross-clamp was 38 minutes longer for AVR versus AVr cohorts. No difference in 30-day (P = .418) or overall survival (P = .572) between the AVr and AVR groups was seen.Conclusions. Aortic valve repair for addressing AI has a recurrence rate of 7.5% at 3 years. Success in downgrading AI is more likely with a smaller aortic root. No difference in survival was observed between AVr and AVR. (C) 2020 by The Society of Thoracic Surgeons