Skip to main content
Download PDF
Download ePub

Cabrol procedure and its modifications: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery volume 19, Article number: 153 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

The Cabrol procedure has undergone various modifications and developments since its invention. However, there is a notable gap in the literature regarding meta-analyses assessing it.

Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness and long-term outcomes of the Cabrol procedure and its modifications. Pooling was conducted using random effects model. Outcome events were reported as linearized occurrence rates (percentage per patient-year) with 95% confidence intervals.

Results

A total of 14 studies involving 833 patients (mean age: 50.8 years; 68.0% male) were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled all-cause early mortality was 9.0% (66 patients), and the combined rate of reoperation due to bleeding was 4.9% (17 patients). During the average 4.4-year follow-up (3,727.3 patient-years), the annual occurrence rates (linearized) for complications were as follows: 3.63% (2.79–4.73) for late mortality, 0.64% (0.35–1.16) for aortic root reoperation, 0.57% (0.25–1.31) for hemorrhage events, 0.66% (0.16–2.74) for thromboembolism, 0.60% (0.29–1.26) for endocarditis, 2.32% (1.04–5.16) for major valve-related adverse events, and 0.58% (0.34–1.00) for Cabrol-related coronary graft complications.

Conclusion

This systematic review provides evidence that the outcomes of the Cabrol procedure and its modifications are acceptable in terms of mortality, reoperation, anticoagulation, and valve-related complications, especially in Cabrol-related coronary graft complications. Notably, the majority of Cabrol procedures were performed in reoperations and complex cases. Furthermore, the design and anastomosis of the Dacron interposition graft for coronary reimplantation, considering natural anatomy and physiological hemodynamics, may promise future advancements in this field.

Peer Review reports

Background

The development and the increasing utilization of valve-sparing aortic root replacement (VSRR), which preserves the native valve and carries a lower risk of hemorrhage and thrombosis, has established it as the primary treatment option for aortic root aneurysms, especially in younger patients. However, composite valve graft (CVG) continue to be the predominant approach in managing aortic root diseases, offering significant advantages such as long-term valve durability, operational stability, and the ability to be implemented across multiple medical centers [1]. Research conducted by Stamou et al. [2] revealed that the proportion of patients undergoing VSRR remains below 15% in the United States. Furthermore, based on the STS adult cardiac surgery database, Wallen et al. [3] showed that CVG was used in 81% of aortic root replacement procedures between 2011 and 2016, while VSRR was used in the remaining cases.

The Cabrol procedure is an example of the use of CVG in aortic surgery, which was introduced by Cabrol and colleagues in 1981 [4], offering a tension-free anastomosis as an innovative alternative to the original Bentall procedure [5, 6]. The procedure attaches the aortic graft to the coronary ostia with a separate Dacron graft to prevent pseudoaneurysms due to excessive tension on the anastomosis [7, 8]. However, reports about stenosis, thrombosis, and occlusion of Dacron grafts have hindered the appilication of Cabrol procedure [7, 9,10,11,12,13,14]. As a result, some researchers have proposed their own improvements to the design and placement of the interposition graft to address the risks associated with twisting and angulation. Pierhler et al. [15] recommended that the left coronary ostia should be anastomosed to the composite conduit with an interposition graft, while the right coronary ostia were anastomosed directly to the composite conduit for simplifying the movement. Mills et al. [16] proposed the “leg” technique, in which short separate grafts were implanted from each coronary ostia into the composite valve graft. Different centers reported different opinions on the optimal length of the branch leg. For example, Maureira et al. [17] advocated using two separate 4–10 mm grafts for coronary artery reimplantation as a simple, reproducible, and safe technique. Our center favors a 3-4 mm interposition graft for enhanced effectiveness in minimizing complications and optimizing blood flow dynamics in the coronary arteries [18]. Kourliouros et al. [19] introduced the “T-fashion” modification. Meanwhile, the Cabrol procedure and its modifications have been tested and confirmed to be safe and effective [17, 20,21,22,23]. It’s currently indicated when traditional button implantation is difficult, such as fragile or torn coronary ostia. Other indications include reoperation, low coronary ostia (< 1.5 cm above the aortic valve annulus), aortic calcification and severe dissection, it is usually applied for unforeseen complications in routine aortic surgery [10, 12, 20, 24,25,26].

Surprisingly, there is a scarcity of systematic reviews and meta-analyses investigating the outcomes and long-term prognosis of the Cabrol procedure in the existing literature, except the Cabrol-related review published by Kourliouros et al. [26] in 2011. To address this gap and to comprehensively evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the Cabrol procedure and its modifications, a systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted, focusing on the perioperative characteristics and long-term outcomes. This study serves as a valuable resource for surgeons and medical centers, providing a reference to assess the potential effectiveness of new techniques and guide the selection of safer and more appropriate procedures.

Materials and methods

Search strategy

This meta-analysis adheres to the guidelines outlined by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA), a program registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO identifier: CRD42023430388). Since all analyses were conducted using previously published studies, the need for ethical approval and patient consent were not required.

A comprehensive strategy was utilized by 2 researchers (Z.Y.F and P.L) working independently and to search in the Pubmed, Embase and Web of Science from inception to April 2023, identifying the relevant studies using the following combination of subject terms and free text terms: “Cabrol”, “modified cabrol”, “aortic root replacement”, “composite valve graft”, “aortic root aneurysm”, “ascending aortic aneurysm”, “dissection, ascending aorta” and “aortic valve insufficiency”, more specific details were provided in the supplementary materials (Supplementary Appendix 1).

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Only studies reporting outcomes of 15 or more patients aged 18 years or older who underwent the Cabrol procedure and its modifications were included. When evaluating a larger series of different aortic root procedures, the specific outcomes related to the Cabrol subgroup were examined, which included morbidity, mortality and coronary graft complications associated with the Cabrol technique. In cases where multiple publications existed for a single study, the most recent and comprehensive data were selected, and all selected studies were cross-referenced to identify additional relevant publications. Only full articles written in English were included, and in cases where the reviewers disagreed about the inclusion of a publication, consensus was reached.

Data extraction

Three authors (Q.X, R.L and L.Y.B) independently extracted data using Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Office 2021, Microsoft Corp, Redmond, WA) in accordance with the guidelines for reporting mortality and morbidity after cardiac valve interventions [27]. The relevant data were extracted from the reviewed text, tables, and graphs of the papers. The collected data encompassed all relevant variables pertaining to the patients’ preoperative, postoperative, and follow-up periods. Events that did not comply with reporting guidelines were excluded from our database. For articles lacking information on important variables, the corresponding authors were contacted to provide the missing data. Any disputes arising during the data extraction process were resolved through collaborative negotiation and consensus among the three investigators. A comprehensive overview of the extracted variables is provided in the supplementary materials (Supplementary Appendix 2).

Data synthesis and statistical analysis

During the evaluation process, the extracted data were analyzed using Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Office 2021, Microsoft Corp, Redmond, WA) and Stata version 15.0 (Stata Corporation, College Station, TX). The reported characteristics of the included studies were presented as means and standard deviations for continuous variables, and percentages for discrete variables. To investigate the correlation between the surgical period and outcomes following the Cabrol procedures, we defined the continuous variable “surgical period” as the year when the first patient was included in each cohort. The outcome events were reported as linearized incidence rates, expressed as percentages per patient-year. The number of patient-years was calculated by multiplying the number of patients included in the study by the mean follow-up time (in years), and the incidence per case was calculated by dividing the number of events by the total number of patient-years of follow-up. When a particular event did not occur in an individual study, we set the number of events to 0.5 in order to pool the linearised incidence of that particular event into the study. I2 statistics evaluated by the Q test were used to quantify the degree of heterogeneity between studies. Considering the inherent variation in study design, all values were calculated by using a random effects model [28]. Heterogeneity was analysed for outcomes with I2 > 50% [29].

To assess the relationship between six baseline variables (age, surgical period, proportion of patients with Marfan’s disease, type A aortic dissection and reoperation, and classical or modified Cabrol procedure) and nine significant outcome events (early mortality, bleeding reoperation, late mortality, root reoperation, hemorrhage, embolism, endocarditis, major valve-related adverse events, and coronary graft complications) relationships, linear regression analyses were performed, and regression analyses were weighted by study size using the inverse variance method. Sources of heterogeneity were further discussed using sensitivity analysis. Finally, visual observation of Begg’s funnel chart along with Begg’s and Egger’s tests [30, 31] were used to assess publication bias, and a P-value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

The comprehensive search yielded 2520 articles, of which 19 articles were potentially eligible after excluding duplicates and irrelevant articles by reading titles and abstracts. After full-text review, four articles were excluded because they did not provide data on Cabrol-related morbidity, mortality or graft complications. In addition, a study by Coselli et al. [32] was excluded from the quantitative analysis due to the lack of a description of the duration of follow-up. Therefore, 14 studies with a total of 833 patients were included in this meta-analysis. (Fig. 1) illustrates the selection process of the 14 articles. The pooled preoperative and perioperative characteristics are shown in (Table 1). The mean follow-up time after Cabrol surgery was 4.4 years (range 1.7–8.6 years) for a total of 3727.3 patient-years. The characteristics of the included studies are summarized in (Supplementary Appendix 3) [7,8,9,10, 12, 20,21,22,23,24,25, 33,34,35]. Consistently, classical Cabrol technique is still used in the majority of studies, with 80.7% (672/833) of the total patients in 11 studies using it [7,8,9,10, 12, 20, 21, 24, 25, 33, 34]. The proportion of reoperation was 34.5% (126/365) in the 8 studies [9, 12, 20,21,22,23, 33, 35]. 27.7% (96/347) of connective tissue disease in 7studies [9, 12, 20,21,22,23, 33]. Aortic dissection in 6 studies was 42.2% (136/322) [9, 12, 21,22,23, 33].

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flow chart of the selection process for studies included in the systematic review and meta-analysis

Full size image
Table 1 Pooled preoperative and perioperative characteristics
Full size table

Early mortality

10 studies were included and the combined all-cause early mortality was 9.0% [7, 9, 12, 20,21,22,23,24,25, 33].

Reoperation for bleeding

7 studies were included and the combined bleeding reoperation rate was 4.9% (17 patients) [12, 20,21,22,23,24, 33].

Late mortality

10 studies were included, with a combined late mortality of 3.63% (per patient-year) using the random effects model, with a 95% confidence interval of (2.79–4.73) and a heterogeneity I2 of 37.1% [7, 9, 12, 20,21,22,23,24,25, 33] ( Fig. 2).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Forest plots and 95% confidence intervals for combined late mortality

Full size image

Root reoperation

The definition of aortic root reoperation followed the description of reinterventions in the guidelines for reporting mortality and morbidity after cardiac valve interventions [27]. 11 studies were included, with a random effects model combined root reoperation of 0.64% (per patient-year), a 95% confidence interval of (0.35–1.16) and a heterogeneity I2 of 7.6% [7,8,9, 12, 20,21,22,23,24,25, 33] (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Forest plots and 95% confidence intervals for combined aortic root reoperation

Full size image

Hemorrhage

8 studies were included, with a random effects model combined hemorrhage of 0.57% (per patient-year), 95% confidence interval of (0.25–1.31) and heterogeneity I2 of 0% [8, 9, 12, 20,21,22, 24, 33] (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Forest plots and 95% confidence intervals for Hemorrhage

Full size image

Thromboembolism

8 studies were included, with a random effects model combined thromboembolism of 0.66% (per patient-year), a 95% confidence interval of (0.16–2.74) and a heterogeneity I2 of 76.2% [8, 10, 12, 20,21,22,23, 33] (Fig. 5).

Fig. 5
figure 5

Forest plots and 95% confidence intervals for Thromboembolism

Full size image

Endocarditis

8 studies were included, with a random effects model for combined endocarditis of 0.60% (per patient-year), a 95% confidence interval of (0.29–1.26) and a heterogeneity I2 of 0% [8, 9, 12, 20,21,22, 24, 33] (Fig. 6).

Fig. 6
figure 6

Forest plots and 95% confidence intervals for endocarditis

Full size image

Major valve-related adverse events

7 studies were included, with a random effects model combining MAVRE of 2.32% (per patient-year), a 95% confidence interval of (1.04–5.16) and a heterogeneity I2 of 76.5% [9, 12, 20,21,22,23, 33] (Fig. 7).

Fig. 7
figure 7

Forest plots and 95% confidence intervals for Major valve-related adverse events

Full size image

Cabrol-related coronary graft complications

14 studies were included, with a random effects model combined with a Cabrol-related coronary graft complication of 0.58% (per patient-year), a 95% confidence interval of (0.34–1.00) and a heterogeneity I2 of 0% [7,8,9,10, 12, 20,21,22,23,24,25, 33,34,35] (Fig. 8).

Fig. 8
figure 8

Forest plots and 95% confidence intervals for Cabrol-related coronary graft complications

Full size image

Regression and sensitivity analysis

Regression analysis of baseline variables and outcome events revealed that the mode of surgery was associated with bleeding reoperation (p = 0.025 < 0.05), which may be a source of heterogeneity in bleeding reoperation. The remaining regression analyses did not reach statistical significance.

Sensitivity analysis was conducted on outcome events with I2 > 50%, and after excluding articles that may interfere with the outcome, there was no significant change in heterogeneity. A considerable heterogeneity (I2 > 75%) may be due to the patient’s basic condition [29], severity and complexity of the condition, as well as the surgeon’s surgical approach.

Publication bias

Egger’s test P = 0.000 < 0.05 for the embolism outcome event, implying that the funnel plot was asymmetrical and therefore a publication bias could be judged for the results of the study on embolism. No publication bias was found for the remaining studies.

Discussion

Since the inception, the Cabrol procedure has been employed and refined by numerous surgeons, the outcomes at early and late stages were also recorded [15, 16, 19, 20,21,22,23, 35]. Despite the occurrence of complications such as coronary graft thrombosis or embolism [7, 9,10,11,12,13,14], the procedure has stood the test of time and practice and has proven to be a valuable tool for surgeons in specific clinical scenarios [22, 24]. To the best of our knowledge, this study represents the most comprehensive meta-analysis of the postoperative characteristics and prognostic outcomes of Cabrol procedures published to date. It provides a significant real-world experience and a valuable reference for individual surgeons or surgical teams to select a safer and more appropriate procedure.

The combined all-cause early mortality is 9.0% and 10-year cumulative late mortality is 36.3% observed in our study which exceeds the same index of Mookhoek et al. [36] (Bentall meta-analysis) with 5.6% for early mortality and 20.2% for 10-year cumulative late mortality and Arabkhani et al. [37] (VSRR meta-analysis) with 2.2% and 15.3%, respectively. However, we have already noted that post-operative outcomes can be influenced by pre-existing conditions, such as patient selection, average patient age, comorbidities and general health. In the studies conducted by Maureira et al. [17] and Tanaka et al. [23], The rates of connective tissue disease, reoperation and aortic dissection were 13.7% and 56.0%, 4.6% and 73.8%, 24.8% and 66.7%, respectively. The early mortality were 8.5% and 15%, respectively. Additionally, 5-year survival rates were 86.3% ± 2.8 and 68% ± 6, while 10-year survival rates were 73.7% ± 4.2 and 52% ± 10. In this study, connective tissue disease, reoperation, and aortic dissection accounted for 27.7%, 34.5% and 42.2%, respectively, as detailed in (Supplementary Appendix 3). Therefore, these factors could potentially result in a suboptimal early and late mortality. It is worth acknowledging that the combined early mortality reported in our analysis may have been influenced by publication bias, selective outcome reporting, or both.

The Cabrol procedure and its modifications make haemostasis a challenge due to the increased number of anastomoses. In this study, a combined reoperation rate for bleeding was 4.9%. Although the “button” technique reduces the need for two anastomoses, it is still a time-consuming procedure due to the need to move the coronary ostia, there is also a potential risk of vascular injury and the possibility of occlusion or pseudoaneurysm formation due to tension [8, 10]. In contrast, the Cabrol technique makes it possible to visualise all bleeding sites and effectively prevents the formation of pseudoaneurysms in coronary ostia [7, 12, 20, 21, 38]. Cabrol’s innovative technique of creating a shunt fistula between the periprosthetic space and the tip of the right atrial appendage is an effective means of enhancing hemostasis [33]. This feature is a major advantage of the Cabrol procedure, especially in severe coagulation disorders [24].

In recent decades, VSRR, including the David reimplantation technique [39], the Sarsam and Yacoub reconstruction technique [40], the Florida sleeve [41], and the personalised aortic root stabilization (PEARS) [42], have gained popularity due to several advantages. VSRR preserves the native valve, eliminating the risks associated with mechanical valves (anticoagulation-related thromboembolism, bleeding) and biological valves (structural valve degeneration). It provides favourable results and improves quality of life for younger patients and those with fertility concerns who wish to avoid oral anticoagulants [43]. However, there are still limitations to the promotion and application of VSRR. In the United States, less than 15% of patients have undergone VSRR with reconstruction [2], possibly due to technical complexity, a steep learning curve and a higher reoperation rate. Benedetto et al. [44] found a fourfold increased risk of reintervention with VSRR compared to conventional CVG. Yacoub et al. [45] reported an 11% probability of reoperation within 5 and 10 years for elective surgery, and Patolla et al. [46] found a 10-year reoperation rate of 12.8% in a series of 342 patients at the Mayo Clinic. In our present study, the combined 10-year cumulative reoperation rate was 6.4%, which is an encouraging outcome.

While the risk of reoperation in CVG is comparatively lower, especially in those with longer follow-up. Due to the use of anticoagulants, patients who have undergone CVG appear to have a higher risk of bleeding and thromboembolism than those who have undergone VSRR [47, 48]. Our study reported a 10-year cumulative incidence of bleeding, embolism, endocarditis, and major valve-related adverse events of 5.7%, 6.6%, 6.0%, and 23.2%, respectively, as detailed in (Supplementary Appendix 4), which is similar to a meta-analysis of Bentall surgery by Mookhoek et al. [36] (6.4%, 7.7%, 3.9%, 26.6%). In contrast, a meta-analysis conducted by Arabkhani et al. [37] reported a lower 10-year cumulative incidence of 2.3% for hemorrhage, 4.1% for embolism, and 2.3% for endocarditis, respectively. In particularly, the complications associated with Cabrol surgery are acceptable, especially as it is often used in more complex situations. Hemorrhage and thromboembolic complications have been associated with oral anticoagulants and mechanical valve implantation. However, these issues are inherent to CVG and cannot be completely avoided. Therefore, it may be advisable to suggest tailored surgical interventions based on individual patient conditions. At the same time, the decision-making process for surgery should be well informed and collaborative between the surgeon and the patient.

The uniqueness of the Cabrol procedure lies in its innovative interposition graft, making it a preferred choice for surgeons in complex cases and reoperations [26]. Despite concerns about long-term graft patency, the combined data from our study showed a lower-than-expected 10-year cumulative incidence of coronary graft complications of 5.8%. However, potential complications may be under-reported due to publication bias or selective outcome reporting, as some patients may have passed away before being admitted to hospital. Therefore, more physiological anatomy and haemodynamic graft designs in coronary revascularisation may overcome these limitations. Researchers like Pierhler [15], Mills [16], and Kourliouros [19] have proposed their own optimizations. Meanwhile, our cardiac centre has observed no complications related to the Cabrol graft while using the modified Cabrol technique with a 3–4 mm interposition vessel [18]. In further research, we found a modified Bentall procedure described by Maureira [17] and Hirasawa [49], which is actually an innovative variant of Cabrol that targets coronary grafts. With the exception of one anastomotic pseudoaneurysm, no complications related to the Cabrol graft were reported [17]. These findings indicate that the technique is feasible, simple, reproducible, and safe. Studies evaluating the effectiveness of the Cabrol procedure and its modification using interposition grafts are summarized in (Table 2). With the development of percutaneous endovascular interventions, the treatment of Cabrol graft occlusion has evolved. Minimally invasive procedures such as balloon angioplasty and stenting have become preferred over traditional reoperation [50,51,52,53], even in complex cases [54]. It is also essential to use CT or magnetic resonance aortography in conjunction with modern transthoracic echocardiography in the early postoperative period to reduce the risk of serious complications. The importance of regular evaluation cannot be emphasised enough.

Table 2 Early and late results of Cabrol surgery using interposition grafts for coronary artery reimplant
Full size table

Limitations

This paper systematically analyzes retrospective observational studies, a limited number of which focus on the long-term outcomes of the Cabrol procedure. Due to the retrospective nature of the studies, the observed results should be interpreted with caution. Some studies in the review didn’t adhere to guidelines for reporting mortality and morbidity after cardiac valve interventions [27]. Consequently, it was not always possible to extract reliable information on key outcome measures. Moreover, the unavailability of individual patient data prevented the use of more reliable outcome measures beyond linearised incidence. Based on the assumption of linearity, the collective linearised outcome event rates are derived from heterogeneous data sources. Caution must be exercised in interpreting the study results, as collective outcome measures may underestimate the true incidence of late morbidity and coronary graft complications after Cabrol.

Conclusion

The distinctive features and inherent advantages of the Cabrol surgical technique highlight its significance in the management of complex scenarios, ensuring its continued presence and relevance in the field of surgery. Our study suggests that mortality, reintervention, anticoagulation, and valve-related complications of Cabrol and its modifications are not as severe as expected, even in Cabrol-related coronary graft complications. This procedure is critical to the success of complex ascending aortic surgery, and its use should not be limited by previous experience. Thus, we strongly advocate that graft design should be more closely linked to physiological anatomy and optimised hemodynamics in coronary ostial anastomosis, as this has great potential to overcome current limitations and revive widespread acceptance.

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article [and its supplementary information files].

Abbreviations

VSRR:

Valve-sparing aortic root replacement

CVG:

Composite valve graft

CABG:

Coronary artery bypass grafting

MAVRE:

Major valve-related adverse event

RCA:

Right coronary artery

LCA:

Left coronary artery

References

  1. Schill MR, Kachroo P. Surgical options for aortic root aneurysm disease: which procedure, which patient. Curr Opin Cardiol. 2021;36:683–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/HCO.0000000000000902.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Stamou SC, Williams ML, Gunn TM, Hagberg RC, Lobdell KW, Kouchoukos NT. Aortic root surgery in the United States: a report from the Society of thoracic surgeons database. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2015;149:116–e1224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2014.05.042.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Wallen T, Habertheuer A, Bavaria JE, Hughes GC, Badhwar V, Jacobs JP, et al. Elective aortic Root replacement in North America: analysis of STS adult cardiac surgery database. Ann Thorac Surg. 2019;107:1307–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2018.12.039.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Cabrol C, Pavie A, Gandjbakhch I, Villemot JP, Guiraudon G, Laughlin L, et al. Complete replacement of the ascending aorta with reimplantation of the coronary arteries. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1981;81:309–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5223(19)37641-X.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Kouchoukos NT, Karp RB, Blackstone EH, Kirklin JW, Pacifico AD, Zorn GL. Replacement of the ascending aorta and aortic valve with a composite graft. Results in 86 patients. Ann Surg. 1980;192(3):403–13. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000658-198009000-00016.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Kouchoukos NT, Wareing TH, Murphy SF, Perrillo JB. Sixteen-year experience with aortic Root replacement. Ann Surg. 1991;214:308–20. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000658-199109000-00013.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Svensson LG, Crawford ES, Hess KR, Coselli JS, Safi HJ. Composite valve graft replacement of the proximal aorta: comparison of techniques in 348 patients. Ann Thorac Surg. 1992;54:427–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-4975(92)90432-4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Aoyagi S, Kosuga K, Akashi H, Oryoji A, Oishi K. Aortic root replacement with a composite graft: results of 69 operations in 66 patients. Ann Thorac Surg. 1994;58:1469–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-4975(94)91937-2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Lund JT, Thiis JJ, Hjelms E. Composite Graft replacement of the aortic valve and ascending aorta with Cabrol Technique. Scand J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1993;27:99–103. https://doi.org/10.3109/14017439309098698.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Bachet J, Termignon J, Goudot B, Dreyfus G, Piquois A, Brodaty D, et al. Aortic root replacement with a composite graft*Factors influencing immediate and long-term results. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 1996;10:207–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1010-7940(96)80298-3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Çetin G, Özkara A, Tireli E, Köner Ö, Süzer K. Myocardial ischemia after Cabrol Operation. Asian Cardiovasc Thorac Ann. 2005;13:187–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/021849230501300221.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Gelsomino S, Frassani R, Da Col P, Morocutti G, Masullo G, Spedicato L, et al. A long-term experience with the cabrol root replacement technique for the management of ascending aortic aneurysms and dissections. Ann Thorac Surg. 2003;75:126–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-4975(02)04284-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Patel D, Patel NA, Arteaga RB, Robinson VJB, Kapoor D. Angina, an unusual and late complication of the Cabrol Procedure: a Case Report and Review of the literature. Am J Med Sci. 2008;335:151–3. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAJ.0b013e3180a6f13b.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Knight J, Baumüller S, Kurtcuoglu V, Turina M, Turina J, Schurr U, et al. Long-term follow-up, computed tomography, and computational fluid dynamics of the Cabrol procedure. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2010;139:1602–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2009.09.023.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Piehler JM, Pluth JR. Replacement of the Ascending Aorta and aortic valve with a composite graft in patients with nondisplaced coronary ostia. Ann Thorac Surg. 1982;33:406–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-4975(10)63239-0.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Mills NL, Morgenstern DA, Gaudiani VA, Ordoyne F. Legs technique for management of widely separated coronary arteries during ascending aortic repair. Ann Thorac Surg. 1996;61:869–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-4975(95)01185-4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Maureira P, Vanhuyse F, Martin C, Lekehal M, Carteaux J-P, Tran N, et al. Modified Bentall Procedure using two short grafts for coronary reimplantation: long-term results. Ann Thorac Surg. 2012;93:443–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2011.11.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Li Ya-xiong, Zi Yun-feng, Zhang X, Jiang L, Yang Y, Li P, et al. The application of modified Cabrol procedure in aortic root replacement with low coronary ostia. Chin J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2013;29(12):717–8. https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.1001-4497.2013.12.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kourliouros A, Grapsa J, Nihoyannopoulos P, Athanasiou T. Modification of the Cabrol as a bailout procedure in complicated bicuspid valve aortopathy. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2011;12:199–201. https://doi.org/10.1510/icvts.2010.254961.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Garlicki M, Roguski K, Puchniewicz M, Ehrlich MP. Composite aortic root replacement using the classic or modified Cabrol coronary artery implantation technique. Scand Cardiovasc J. 2006;40:230–3. https://doi.org/10.1080/14017430600746276.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Kitamura T, Kigawa I, Fukuda S, Miyairi T, Takamoto S. Long term results with the Cabrol Aortic Root replacement. Int Heart J. 2011;52:229–32. https://doi.org/10.1536/ihj.52.229.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Ziganshin BA, Williams FE, Tranquilli M, Elefteriades JA. Midterm experience with modified Cabrol procedure: safe and durable for complex aortic root replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014;147:1233–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2013.03.027.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Tanaka A, Al-Rstum Z, Zhou N, Hassan M, Sandhu HK, Miller CC, et al. Feasibility and durability of the modified Cabrol coronary artery reattachment technique. Ann Thorac Surg. 2020;110:1847–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2020.04.125.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Mldulla PS, Ergin MA, Galla J, Lansman SL, Sadeghi AM, Levy M, et al. Three faces of the Bentall Procedure. J Card Surg. 1994;9:466–81. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-8191.1994.tb00879.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Jault F, Nataf P, Rama A, Fontanel M, Vaissier E, Pavie A, et al. Chronic disease of the ascending aorta. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1994;108:747–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5223(94)70303-5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Kourliouros A, Soni M, Rasoli S, Grapsa J, Nihoyannopoulos P, O’Regan D, et al. Evolution and current applications of the Cabrol Procedure and its modifications. Ann Thorac Surg. 2011;91:1636–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2011.01.061.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Akins CW, Miller DC, Turina MI, Kouchoukos NT, Blackstone EH, Grunkemeier GL, et al. Guidelines for reporting mortality and morbidity after Cardiac Valve interventions. Ann Thorac Surg. 2008;85:1490–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2007.12.082.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. DerSimonian R, Kacker R. Random-effects model for meta-analysis of clinical trials: an update. Contemp Clin Trials. 2007;28:105–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2006.04.004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.3 (updated February 2022). Cochrane, 2022. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.

  30. Egger M, Smith GD, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315:629–34. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Begg CB, Mazumdar M. Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for Publication Bias. Biometrics. 1994;50:1088. https://doi.org/10.2307/2533446.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Coselli JS, Crawford ES. Composite valve-graft replacement of aortic root using separate Decron tube for coronary artery reattachment. Ann Thorac Surg. 1989;47:558–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-4975(89)90432-3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Cabrol C, Pavie A, Mesnildrey P, Gandjbakhch I, Laughlin L, Bors V, et al. Long-term results with total replacement of the ascending aorta and reimplantation of the coronary arteries. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1986;91:17–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5223(19)38476-4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Lamana FDA, Dias RR, Duncan JA, Faria LBD, Malbouisson LMS, Borges LDF, et al. Surgery of the aortic root: should we go for the valve-sparing root reconstruction or the composite graft-valve replacement is still the first choice of treatment for these patients? Rev Bras Cir Cardiovasc. 2015. https://doi.org/10.5935/1678-9741.20150028.

  35. Pedroza AJ, Dalal AR, Krishnan A, Yokoyama N, Nakamura K, Tognozzi E et al. Outcomes of reoperative aortic Root replacement after previous acute type a dissection repair. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2023:S1043067923000163. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.semtcvs.2023.02.001.

  36. Mookhoek A, Korteland NM, Arabkhani B, Di Centa I, Lansac E, Bekkers JA, et al. Bentall Procedure: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. Ann Thorac Surg. 2016;101:1684–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2015.10.090.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Arabkhani B, Mookhoek A, Di Centa I, Lansac E, Bekkers JA, De Wijngaarden L. Reported Outcome after Valve-Sparing Aortic Root replacement for aortic Root Aneurysm: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015;100:1126–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2015.05.093.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Hahn C, Tam SKC, Vlahakes GJ, Hilgenberg AD, Akins CW, Buckley MJ. Repeat aortic root replacement. Ann Thorac Surg. 1998;66:88–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-4975(98)00352-X.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. David TE, Feindel CM. An aortic valve-sparing operation for patients with aortic incompetence and aneurysm of the ascending aorta. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1992;103:617–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5223(19)34942-6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Sarsam MAI, Yacoub M. Remodeling of the aortic valve anulus. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1993;105:435–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5223(19)34225-4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Hess PJ, Klodell CT, Beaver TM, Martin TD. The Florida sleeve: a new technique for aortic Root Remodeling with Preservation of the aortic valve and sinuses. Ann Thorac Surg. 2005;80:748–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2004.02.092.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Pepper J, Golesworthy T, Utley M, Chan J, Ganeshalingam S, Lamperth M, et al. Manufacturing and placing a bespoke support for the Marfan aortic root: description of the method and technical results and status at one year for the first ten patients. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2010;10:360–5. https://doi.org/10.1510/icvts.2009.220319.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Joo H-C, Chang B-C, Youn Y-N, Yoo K-J, Lee S. Clinical experience with the Bentall Procedure: 28 years. Yonsei Med J. 2012;53:915. https://doi.org/10.3349/ymj.2012.53.5.915.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Benedetto U, Melina G, Takkenberg JJM, Roscitano A, Angeloni E, Sinatra R. Surgical management of aortic root disease in Marfan syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Heart. 2011;97:955–8. https://doi.org/10.1136/hrt.2010.210286.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Yacoub MH, Gehle P, Chandrasekaran V, Birks EJ, Child A, Radley-Smith R. Late results of a valve-preserving operation in patients with aneurysms of the ascending aorta and root. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1998;115:1080–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5223(98)70408-8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Patlolla SH, Saran N, Dearani JA, Stulak JM, Schaff HV, Greason KL, et al. Outcomes and risk factors of late failure of valve-sparing aortic root replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2022;164:493–e5011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2020.09.070.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Tourmousoglou C, Rokkas C. Is aortic valve-sparing operation or replacement with a composite graft the best option for aortic root and ascending aortic aneurysm? Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2008;8:134–47. https://doi.org/10.1510/icvts.2008.186544.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Lim JY, Kim JB, Jung S-H, Choo SJ, Chung CH, Lee JW. Surgical Management of Aortic Root Dilatation with Advanced Aortic Regurgitation: Bentall Operation versus Valve-Sparing Procedure. Korean J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2012;45:141–7. https://doi.org/10.5090/kjtcs.2012.45.3.141.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Hirasawa Y. Long-term results of modified Bentall procedure using flanged composite aortic prosthesis and separately interposed coronary graft technique. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2006;5:574–7. https://doi.org/10.1510/icvts.2005.127860.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Witzenbichler B, Schwimmbeck P, Schultheiss H-P. Myocardial infarction caused by occlusion of Cabrol Conduit Graft. Circulation. 2005;112. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.104.500215.

  51. Hoskins MH, Kacharava AG, Green TF, Mavromatis K. Percutaneous intervention of Cabrol graft-left main anastomosis during acute myocardial infarction. Int J Cardiol. 2010;140:e27–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2008.11.073.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Wells TA, Kapoor A. Percutaneous coronary intervention through a Cabrol composite graft. Int J Cardiol. 2007;116:e44–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2006.08.101.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Coram R, George Z, Breall JA. Percutaneous intervention through a Cabrol composite graft. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2005;66:356–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.20496.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Bozlar U, Ragosta M, Arora V, Hagspiel KD. Anastomotic leak after cabrol composite graft procedure: diagnosis by computed tomographic angiography and treatment by covered stent. Tex Heart Inst J. 2008;35(2):214–5.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author is grateful to Li Ya Xiong at Yan’an Hospital Afliated to Kunming Medical University for helpful suggestions.

Funding

This work was supported by grants from the Joint Program of Yunnan Province and Kunming Medical University (No. 2019FE001-156) and Yunnan provincial Applied Basic Research Project (No. 2019-1-C-25318000002246). The funding body played no role in the design of the study and collection, analysis, and interpretation of data and in writing the manuscript.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Sen Yang and Ya-yong Zhang contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Yan’an Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, Kunming, Yunnan, China

    Sen Yang, Ya-yong Zhang, Yun-feng Zi, Lei Pu, Xu Qian, Le Ren, Yong-bo Li, Zhi-hao Jin, Jian-feng Liu, Zhuo Yuan & Ya-Xiong Li

  2. Key Laboratory of Cardiovascular Disease of Yunnan Province, Yan’an Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, Kunming, Yunnan, China

    Ya-yong Zhang, Yun-feng Zi, Lei Pu, Xu Qian, Le Ren, Yong-bo Li, Jian-feng Liu & Ya-Xiong Li

Authors
  1. Sen Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ya-yong Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yun-feng Zi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Lei Pu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Xu Qian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Le Ren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Yong-bo Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Zhi-hao Jin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Jian-feng Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Zhuo Yuan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Ya-Xiong Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

YS and ZYY conceived and designed this research. ZYF and PL developed the search strategies, searched the databases, and conducted inspections based on eligibility and exclusion criteria. QX, RL and LYB extracted and analyzed quantitative data. JZH, LJF and YZ for graphical and tables plotting, All authors contributed to writing, reviewing or revising this paper. LYX is the guarantor. We thank the editors of the Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery for editing this manuscript. All authors read and approved the fnal manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ya-Xiong Li.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yang, S., Zhang, Yy., Zi, Yf. et al. Cabrol procedure and its modifications: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Cardiothorac Surg 19, 153 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13019-024-02642-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13019-024-02642-w

Keywords

Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery

ISSN: 1749-8090

Contact us