Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 19, 2026

Full-root Aortic Valve Replacement by Stentless Aortic Xenografts in Patients with Small Aortic Roots
Published on: May 21, 2017
Aortic Valve Replacement in the Failing Left Ventricle: Worthwhile?
Asanish Kalyanasundaram1, Thais Faggion Vinholo1, Mohammad A Zafar1
1Aortic Institute at Yale-New Haven Hospital, New Haven, CT 06510, USA.
Insights
Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is safe for patients with severe aortic stenosis or regurgitation and a low ejection fraction (EF) of 35% or less. SAVR significantly improves EF over time, with survival comparable to the general population.
Area of Science:
- Cardiovascular Surgery
- Cardiac Valve Repair and Replacement
- Echocardiography
Background:
- Current guidelines recommend aortic valve replacement (AVR) for severe aortic stenosis or regurgitation, irrespective of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).
- However, surgeons may hesitate to perform SAVR in patients with very low LVEF (<55%) due to perceived high operative risks.
- This study investigates the outcomes of SAVR in patients with severely impaired LVEF (≤35%).
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the safety and efficacy of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with severely reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF ≤ 35%).
- To assess changes in LVEF and mid-term survival following SAVR in this high-risk patient group.
Main Methods:
- A retrospective analysis of 895 patients undergoing SAVR between 2004 and 2019 identified 40 patients with LVEF ≤ 35%.
- Preoperative and postoperative echocardiograms were used to assess changes in LVEF.
- Intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) was used prophylactically in 18 patients; mid-term survival was analyzed.
Main Results:
- Hospital survival was high at 97.5%.
- The average LVEF improved significantly from 26% preoperatively to 46% at mid-term follow-up (mean 43 months).
- Five-year survival was comparable to age- and gender-matched general population, with significant reductions in left ventricular dimensions observed.
Conclusions:
- SAVR can be performed safely in patients with a compromised left ventricle (LVEF ≤ 35%) and severe aortic valve disease.
- Patients experience significant improvements in LVEF post-SAVR, leading to normalized long-term survival.
- Prophylactic use of IABP may be beneficial in this cohort, and surgeons should not avoid SAVR in these patients.
Purpose:
According to the 2020 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines, the aortic valve should be replaced in the setting of severe aortic stenosis or regurgitation, independent of left ventricular function (even for EF 55%). However, in clinical practice, especially in a very low EF range, surgeons may avoid surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) because of concern over operative risk. This study examines outcomes of patients with EF 35% undergoing SAVR.
Methods:
From 2004 to 2019, 895 patients underwent SAVR for aortic stenosis (AS) and/or regurgitation (AR) by a single surgeon at our institution. From among these, 40 patients (4.47%) had an ejection fraction (EF) of 35% or less, forming the study group. Intra-aortic balloon pump was placed intraoperatively prophylactically pre-bypass in 18 out of the 40. Preoperative and post-operative echocardiograms were compared to determine changes in ejection fraction. Mid-term survival was assessed.
Results:
16 patients presented with AS, 20 with AR, and 4 with a combination of AS and AR. Hospital survival was 97.5% (one patient death). The average ejection fraction progressively improved over time from 26% initially to 46% mid-term with mean follow-up of 43 months (0.1-140.7). Remarkably, five-year survival was comparable between the study group and an age- and gender-matched general population (p = 0.834). Downward trends in LV end-diastolic diameter and end-systolic diameter were seen. The former achieved statistical significance (6.0 cm to 5.3 cm; p = 0.0046), while the latter fell slightly short (4.8 cm to 4.1 cm; p = 0.056). Patients in whom an IABP was used had lower EFs than those without IABP (range 10-35, mean 23% vs. 15-35%, mean 27.6%). The EFs of the three subgroups improved significantly postoperatively (p 0.001 for AS, p = 0.002 for AR, and p = 0.046 for AS and AR).
Conclusions:
Surgical AVR can be done safely in patients with a failing LV with EF 35%. Significant improvements in the ejection fraction are seen over time. We believe there is a role for prophylactic pre-bypass IABP. Five-year survival is normalized. Surgeons should not hesitate to perform AVR in these highly jeopardized patients.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
Mitral Regurgitation I: Introduction
Mitral Stenosis III: Medical Management
Aortic Regurgitation I: Introduction
Aortic Regurgitation II: Clinical Features and Diagnostic Tests
Aortic Regurgitation III: Medical Management
Cardiomyopathy V: Interprofessional Care

