Background-Homograft valves offer many advantages; however, there is concern about their use in second aortic valve replacement because of the complexity of the procedure and the possibility of accelerated degeneration. Methods and Results-One hundred and forty-four patients underwent a second aortic homograft replacement between 1973 and 1997 (mean follow-up 6.5Ϯ5 years, range 1 to 20 years). Eighty-three were male, and 61 were female, aged 17 to 77 years, mean 49.0 years. All patients had undergone previous aortic valve replacement with a homograft. The indication for reoperation was aortic regurgitation in 75 patients (52.1%), aortic stenosis in 28 (19.4%), and mixed aortic valve disease in 41 (28.5%). Root replacement was performed in 54 patients (38%) and subcoronary in 90 (62.5%). Early mortality was 3.4%. The actuarial survival rate was 93% and 82% at 5 and 10 years, respectively. Freedom from tissue degeneration was 96% and 80% at 5 and 10 years, respectively, and freedom from reoperation was 97% and 82% at 5 and 10 years, respectively. Conclusions-Thisstudy shows that a second aortic valve homograft replacement results in good early and long-term survival. Accelerated degeneration does not occur. Left ventricular performance is improved, and earlier surgery could further improve outcome, indicating that an aortic homograft is a safe, durable option for patients requiring a second aortic valve replacement. (Circulation. 1999;100[suppl II]:II-42-II-47.) Surgical TechniquePatients were cooled to a temperature of 28°C under total cardiopulmonary bypass. Myocardial preservation was achieved by using crystalloid cardioplegia at 4°C (St. Thomas Hospital, No 1), infused through the aortic root or directly into the coronary ostia. The

Background —Homograft valves offer many advantages; however, there is concern about their use in second aortic valve replacement because of the complexity of the procedure and the possibility of accelerated degeneration. Methods and Results —One hundred and forty-four patients underwent a second aortic homograft replacement between 1973 and 1997 (mean follow-up 6.5±5 years, range 1 to 20 years). Eighty-three were male, and 61 were female, aged 17 to 77 years, mean 49.0 years. All patients had undergone previous aortic valve replacement with a homograft. The indication for reoperation was aortic regurgitation in 75 patients (52.1%), aortic stenosis in 28 (19.4%), and mixed aortic valve disease in 41 (28.5%). Root replacement was performed in 54 patients (38%) and subcoronary in 90 (62.5%). Early mortality was 3.4%. The actuarial survival rate was 93% and 82% at 5 and 10 years, respectively. Freedom from tissue degeneration was 96% and 80% at 5 and 10 years, respectively, and freedom from reoperation was 97% and 82% at 5 and 10 years, respectively. Conclusions —This study shows that a second aortic valve homograft replacement results in good early and long-term survival. Accelerated degeneration does not occur. Left ventricular performance is improved, and earlier surgery could further improve outcome, indicating that an aortic homograft is a safe, durable option for patients requiring a second aortic valve replacement.