The autograft principle results in postoperative long-term survival comparable with that of the age- and gender-matched general population and reoperation rates within the 1%/patient-year boundaries and should be considered in young, active patients who want to avoid the shortcomings of conventional prostheses.

Techniques for faster arch replacement and controlled FET placement should be considered in order to reduce the early mortality and neurological complications after FET surgery. For distal aortic lesions, a two-staged approach is suggested, rather than the FET landing lower than T10.

The autograft principle remains a valid option for young patients requiring aortic valve replacement. The risk of reoperation depends largely on the surgical technique used and the preoperative hemodynamics. Center experience and expertise also influence the long-term results. Adequate endocarditis prophylaxis might further reduce the need for reoperation.

on behalf of the German-Dutch Ross Registry Background-Autograft reinforcement interventions (R) during the Ross procedure are intended to preserve autograft function and improve durability. The aim of this study is to evaluate this hypothesis. Methods and Results-1335 adult patients (mean age:43.5Ϯ12.0 years) underwent a Ross procedure (subcoronary, SC, nϭ637; root replacement, Root, nϭ698). 592 patients received R of the annulus, sinotubular junction, or both. Regular clinical and echocardiographic follow-up was performed (mean:6.09Ϯ3.97, range:0.01 to 19.2 years). Longitudinal assessment of autograft function with time was performed using multilevel modeling techniques. The Root without R (RootϪR) group was associated with a 6ϫ increased reoperation rate compared to Root with R (RootϩR), SC with R (SCϩR), and without R (SC-R; 12.9% versus 2.3% versus 2.5%.versus 2.6%, respectively; PϽ0.001). SC and Root groups had similar rate of aortic regurgitation (AR) development over time. RootϩR patients had no progression of AR, whereas RootϪR had 6 times higher AR development compared to RootϩR. In SC, R had no remarkable effect on the annual AR progression. The SC technique was associated with lower rates of autograft dilatation at all levels of the aortic root compared to the Root techniques. R did not influence autograft dilatation rates in the Root group. Conclusions-For the time period of the study surgical autograft stabilization techniques preserve autograft function and result in significantly lower reoperation rates. The nonreinforced Root was associated with significant adverse outcome. Therefore, surgical stabilization of the autograft is advisable to preserve long-term autograft function, especially in the Root Ross procedure. (Circulation. 2009;120[suppl 1]:S146-S154.)

The FET technique provides an effective treatment for AoD, promoting FL thrombosis and remodelling in the descending thoracic aorta. Changes in the diameter of the aortic lumen depend mainly on the status of the FL and are similar between acute and chronic AoD. Changes in the diameter of true lumen are affected by both the FL status and the timing of the presentation. However, increased FL thrombosis and positive remodelling rates are not maintained at the level of the abdominal aorta, and strict follow-up is mandatory to detect early changes in the aortic dimensions, which may warrant further interventions.

on behalf of the German Ross RegistryBackground-Autograft regurgitation and root dilatation after the Ross procedure is of major concern. We reviewed data from the German Ross Registry to document the development of autograft regurgitation and root dilatation with time and also to compare 2 different techniques of autograft implantation. Methods and Results-Between

Although longer follow-up of patients who undergo Ross operation is needed, the present series confirms that the autograft procedure is a valid option to treat aortic valve disease in selected patients. The nonreinforced full root technique and preoperative aortic regurgitation are predictors for autograft failure and warrant further consideration. Clinical Trial Registration-URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00708409.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to examine the feasibility and clinical course after minimally invasive David procedure compared with those via a conventional median sternotomy. METHODS:One hundred and ninety-two consecutive patients who underwent elective valve-sparing aortic root replacement (David procedure) with or without additional cusp repair for aortic regurgitation (n = 17, 8.9%), dilatation of the aortic root (n = 95, 49.5%) or a combination of both pathologies (n = 80, 41.7%) were included. Patients with systemic disorders, such as Marfan's syndrome, and emergency cases were excluded. Assessment of quality of life was performed by modified Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) questionnaire. To minimize baseline differences, a matched pair analysis was conducted. RESULTS:One hundred and seventeen patients (60.9%) received a minimally invasive hemisternotomy (Group 1), 75 patients a conventional median sternotomy (39.1%, Group 2). Patients of Group 1 were significantly younger (56.5 ± 13.6 vs 64.8 ± 11.6, P < 0.001). Understandably, concomitant cardiac procedures were more frequent in Group 2 (n = 7 [6.0%] vs n = 48 [64.0%], P < 0.001). In hospital, mortality was 0.9% in Group 1 (1/117) and 2.7% in Group 2 (2/75; P = 0.562). Blood loss was significantly less in Group 1 (542.6 ± 441.8 vs 996.7 ± 822.6 ml, P < 0.001). Duration of mechanical ventilation (10.2 ± 21.8 vs 26.9 ± 109.0 h, P < 0.001) and ICU-stay (1.9 ± 3.6 vs 3.2 ± 5.6 days, P < 0.001) were significantly shorter in the minimally invasive group, but this differences did not remain after matching. According to SF-36 questionnaire, patients in the minimally invasive group tend to have a higher quality of life. CONCLUSIONS:Minimally invasive valve-sparing aortic root replacement can be done safely via an upper partial sternotomy in experienced hands even if additional cusp repair is required.