https://orcid.org/0009-0008-9789-7198
-
Views
-
Cite
Cite
Qurat ul ain Iftikhar, Zenia Safwan, Optimizing aortic valve repair: the need for long-term comparisons of CardioCel and available alternatives, European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, Volume 67, Issue 3, March 2025, ezaf077, https://doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezaf077
Close - Share Icon Share
Extract
Dear Editor,
I have read with great interest the study by Irimie et al. on aortic valve reconstruction using CardioCel, highlighting its midterm outcomes. This study contributes significantly to the evolving field of valve repair, particularly in addressing durability concerns with pericardial patches.
The research investigates the application of CardioCel in the context of aortic valve reconstruction among a cohort of 167 patients, spanning from September 2014 to June 2021. CardioCel was utilized solely for cusp patch-plasty, with 70% of the patients undergoing isolated cusp repair, while the remaining 30% necessitated a combined valve and root repair. The rates of early mortality were notably low at 0.6%, with the survival percentages at 2, 4 and 6 years recorded at 98.8, 96.8 and 95.7%, respectively. Complications observed included aortic insufficiency in 10 patients, predominantly those presenting with a bicuspid valve, culminating in a cumulative reoperation risk of 7.8% at the 6-year mark. No evidence of degeneration or calcification of CardioCel was detected, suggesting its viability as a sustainable alternative to biological valve replacement. However, a comparative evaluation with alternative techniques could provide a clearer perspective on its long-term clinical utility [1].
