$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$
$$\longleftharp{xx}$$,
$$\longrightharp{xx}$$,
Biological aortic valve replacement is recommended for patients older than 65 years1. In patients with small aortic roots, the implantation of a stented biological valve substitute based on the labelled size given by the manufacturer might not meet the functional needs. In this situation, Rahimtoola first described the prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) as follows: "mismatch can be considered to be present when the effective prosthetic valve area, after insertion into the patient, is less than that of a normal human valve"2. The effective orifice area of the valve prosthesis is to be related to the patient's body size and, more commonly, to the patient's body surface area. The hemodynamic consequence of a too-small prosthetic valve is an abnormally high transvalvular gradient3. It has been shown that the relationship between the transvalvular gradient and the effective orifice area indexed to the body surface area (EOAI) is curvilinear and that gradients increase exponentially when the indexed EOA is less than 0.8 to 0.9 cm2/m2. On the basis of this relation, an EOAI less than 0.85 cm2/m2 is generally regarded as the threshold for PPM in the aortic position4. The impact of the PPM on early and late clinical outcomes is controversial. However, it has been reported that PPM negatively affects the regression of left ventricular hypertrophy and thus the normalization of left ventricular function and the alleviation of symptoms4. Persistent left ventricular hypertrophy is associated with an increased risk of arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death5.
It is therefore advisable to avoid PPM as much as possible4. In the case of a predictable PPM for a planned aortic valve replacement with a biological valve substitute, the options are: 1) to accept the PPM resulting from the implantation of a stented pericardial valve when comorbidities of the patient forbid a more technically demanding operative technique to implant a larger prosthesis, 2) to enlarge the aortic root to accommodate a larger stented valve substitute6, or 3) to implant a stentless biological valve7 or homograft8.
Aortic root enlargement has been reported to enhance perioperative bleeding, necessitating a re-sternotomy and increasing early mortality9. Aortic homografts may have excellent hemodynamic profiles and good long-term outcomes when implanted by experienced surgeons8. However, their limited availability and the accelerated rate of calcification make aortic homografts less suitable biological valve substitutes than their counterpart, porcine stentless aortic xenografts10.
The shortage and drawbacks of homografts have prompted the conception and development of alternative biological valve substitutes. To this purpose, stentless aortic xenografts were introduced into clinical practice11. On one hand, thanks to the elimination of the cumbersome sewing ring, stentless aortic xenografts can reproduce the hemodynamic advantages of homografts. On the other hand, as a result of the application of anti-calcification technology, the durability of stentless aortic xenografts has been optimized to match and even exceed the longevity of homografts11. Hemodynamic advantages of stentless aortic xenografts are entirely attained by full-root implantation12. In contrast to subcoronary and root inclusion techniques, full-root implantation places the stentless aortic xenograft on top of the aortic annulus, and not inside it. This fact underlies the rationale to opt for the full-root implantation technique, which grants the implementation of the largest internal functional diameter of the stentless valve substitute. In addition, the preservation of the Valsalva sinuses en-bloc with the valve leaflets favors more physiological opening and closing movements and hence a longer life expectancy of the leaflets. This advantage further contributes to the amelioration of long-term results12.
However, concerns regarding the increased potential for bleeding and for the possible distortion of coronary ostia anastomoses prevent a number of cardiac surgeons from shifting from a classical aortic valve replacement with a stented biological valve to the more technically demanding procedure represented by full-root replacement with stentless aortic xenografts.
Given the potential hemodynamic advantages of stentless aortic xenografts, we have adopted full-root implantation to avoid PPM in patients with small aortic roots necessitating an aortic valve replacement (Table 1). In these patients, the aim is to attain a projected EOAI of greater than 0.85 cm2/m2 for the newly implanted aortic valve. This intention is based on the reports of Pibarot and co-workers showing an unacceptably high transvalvular gradients for valve substitutes having a projected EOAI of less than 0.85 cm2/m2, with the subsequent incomplete relief of symptoms and the persistent risk of adverse outcomes3,4. Following the initial identification of adult patients with an aortic annulus diameter of less than 20 mm on their pre-operative echocardiography, patients are further selected to have a body surface area of greater than 1.6 m2. In this subgroup of patients, the implantation of a 19-mm stented pericardial aortic valve (EOA: 1.28 cm2) would result in a projected EOAI of less than 0.85 cm2/m2. In this protocol, these patients are candidates for the full-root implantation of stentless aortic xenografts. The final decision is made intra-operatively after the removal of the aortic valve. If a 19-mm valve sizer for the stented pericardial aortic valve passes too-tightly through the aortic annulus and the patient is hemodynamically stable and can tolerate a longer operation, the full-root implantation of a stentless aortic xenograft is performed.
For the stentless aortic xenografts, we use two commercially available valve substitutes interchangeably (for details, see the Table of Materials). Both valves are procured from the porcine aortic root bearing the aortic valve. They are prepared using a low-pressure (0-2 mmHg) fixation process, with anti-calcification (e.g., XenoLogiX) treatment for one valve and alpha amino oleic acid (AOA) anti-calcification treatment for the other. In those patients for whom the 19 mm sizer for the stented pericardial valves passes too-tightly through the aortic annulus, the 23 mm sizer for the stentless aortic xenograft fitting well in the aortic annulus denotes that the stentless aortic xenograft size of 23 mm is to be chosen. This protocol describes in detail the technique of full-root implantation of stentless aortic xenografts, with emphasis on the management of the proximal suture line and coronary anastomoses. Limitations of this technique and alternative options are discussed.