Home > Journals > The Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery > Past Issues > The Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery 2021 June;62(3) > The Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery 2021 June;62(3):258-67

CURRENT ISSUE
 

JOURNAL TOOLS

eTOC
To subscribe
Submit an article
Recommend to your librarian
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Publication history
Reprints
Permissions
Cite this article as
Share

 

ORIGINAL ARTICLE  CARDIAC SECTION 

The Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery 2021 June;62(3):258-67

DOI: 10.23736/S0021-9509.20.11443-5

Copyright © 2020 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

language: English

Propensity score matched comparison of isolated, elective aortic valve replacement with and without concomitant septal myectomy: is it worth it?

Konstantin von ASPERN 1, Edoardo BIANCHI 1, Josephina HAUNSCHILD 1, Claudia DAHLENBURG 1, Martin MISFELD 1, 2, Michael A. BORGER 1, Christian D. ETZ 1

1 Department of Cardiac Surgery, Heart Center Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany; 2 Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, The Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, Australia



BACKGROUND: Septal myectomy during open aortic valve replacement (AVR) is an effective surgical treatment for asymmetric secondary basal septal hypertrophy. Concerns regarding higher rates of complications associated with this procedure have been raised - such as permanent pacemaker implantation. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes and complications of patients with and without concomitant septal myectomy using propensity score matching applied to a large, consecutive single center cohort.
METHODS: A total of 2199 consecutive patients undergoing either AVR with concomitant myectomy (AVR-M, N.=212) or AVR alone (N.=1987) were analyzed (2009-2015). Patients with previous cardiac or emergency surgery, concomitant cardiac procedures and endocarditis were excluded. As reference to previously published data, patient characteristics and outcomes of the overall cohort were examined and for comparison between groups propensity score matching utilized.
RESULTS: In the unmatched cohort, AVR-M patients were older (71.2±8 vs. 67.6±10 years, P<0.001) and more often female (68% vs. 37%, P<0.001) in comparison to patients receiving only AVR. After matching (N.=374) no significant difference in baseline features was evident. No significant difference in hospital mortality (2.1% vs. 1.6%, P=1.000) and pacemaker-implantation rate (5.3% vs. 3.7%, P=0.621) was observed. Mid-term survival was comparable between the two groups (86.1±5% vs. 84.4±5% after 6 years, P=0.957). The overall patient cohort showed a survival comparable to that of an adjusted regional normal population (P=0.178).
CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that concomitant myectomy in patients undergoing AVR is a safe surgical technique resulting in comparable hospital mortality and mid-term survival. Concomitant septal myectomy seems not to be associated with an increased pacemaker implantation rate.


KEY WORDS: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement; Cardiomyopathy, hypertrophic, familial; Cardiology

top of page