Siena's experience with pulmonary autograft operations: clinical and echocardiographic follow-up

As there is no perfect aortic valve substitute, there is a need to find out which one is the best option to replace the diseased aortic valve. Any type of mechanical or biological stented device has a residual gradient and does not reproduce the extremely sophisticated normal aortic valve function. This may influence the short- and long-term outcome, especially in dilated and poorly contracting left ventricles which do not tolerate even a mild stenosis. Thus, the potentially ideal valve to replace the aortic valve is either an aortic valve (aortic homograft) or a pulmonary autograft in aortic position. These grafts are also less subject to endocarditis. It has been demonstrated that pulmonary autografts can grow when implanted in children and as they remain viable, they maintain their dynamic behavior and possibly the internal innervation of the cusps. Unfortunately, pulmonary autograft surgery is more demanding and lasts longer, which may increase the risk of the operation. In addition, the exact indications and applications of the operation, particularly in patients with poor left ventricles or additional lesions, have not been clearly defined. Here we report our experience with this technique in 11 patients with severe aortic valve disease, including those with poor left ventricle function and/or associated disease. We describe our short- and medium-term follow-up, which shows optimal left ventricle recovery with no perioperative or postoperative complications, thus supporting a wider application of the operation.