Background: Aortic valve repair was established in the context of aortic root remodeling. Variable results have been reported for isolated valve repair. We analyzed our experience with isolated valve repair and compared the results with those of aortic root remodeling.
Methods: Between October 1995 and August 2003, isolated repair of the aortic valve was performed in 83 patients (REP), remodeling of the aortic valve in 175 patients (REMO). The demographics of the two groups were comparable (REP: mean age 54.4 +/- 20.7 yrs, male-female ratio 2.1 : 1; REMO: mean age 60.8 +/- 13.6 yrs, male-female ratio 2.4 : 1; p = ns). In both groups the number of bicuspid valves was comparable (REP: 41 %, REMO: 32 %; p = ns). All patients were followed by echocardiography for a cumulative follow-up of 8204 patient months (mean 32 +/- 23 months).
Results: Overall in-hospital mortality was 2.4 % in REP and 4.6 % in REMO ( p = 0.62). Systolic gradients were comparable in both groups (REP: 5.8 +/- 2.2, REMO: 6.5 +/- 3.1 mm Hg, p = 0.09). The mean degree of aortic regurgitation 12 months postoperatively was 0.8 +/- 0.7 after REP and 0.7 +/- 0.7 after REMO ( p = 0.29). Freedom from significant regurgitation (> or = II degrees ) after 5 years was 86 % in REP and 89 % in REMO ( p = 0.17). Freedom from re-operation after 5 years was 94.4 % in REP and 98.2 % in REMO ( p = 0.33).
Conclusions: Aortic regurgitation without concomitant root dilatation can be treated effectively by aortic valve repair. The functional results are equivalent to those obtained with valve-preserving root replacement. Aortic valve repair appears to be an alternative to valve replacement in aortic regurgitation.