Long-term outcomes and predictors of recurrent aortic regurgitation after aortic valve-sparing and reconstructive cusp surgery: a single centre experience

Table 3 Characteristics of the patients with recurrent AR (> 2+)

Patien. Nr.	AV	Age (years)	SI	PreAR (3+)	AVJ (mm)	ACR technique	TEE AR + 1	eH (mm)	Mechanism	rAR (months)
1	TAV	54	–	1	29	FMR	1	3	Prolap	8
2	BAV	42	S1	1	29	RZ, FMR	1	10	Dehis	9
3	BAV	34	S1	1	31	RZ, FMR	1	6	Dehis	5
4	TAV	50	–	1	31	FMP,FMR	1	6.2	Restr	25
5	BAV	18	S1	1	27	FMP	0	6.1	Prolap	3
6	TAV	53	–	1	28	FMP	1	5.5	Prolap	24
7	BAV	48	S1	1	29	FMP	1	6	Restr	37
8	TAV	64	–	1	32	FMP	1	7	Prolap	6
9	BAV	33	S1	1	30	FMR	1	8	Dehis	4
10	TAV	52	–	1	27	FMP	1	8	Prolap	7
11	BAV	48	S0	1	29	FMP	1	10	Prolap	12

ACR aortic cusp repair, AR aortic regurgitation, AV aortic valve, AVJ aortoventricular junction, BAV bicuspid aortic valve, Dehi dehisence, eH effective height, FMP re- margin central plication, FMR free margin resuspension, pAR preoperative aortic regurgitation, Prolap prolapse, rAR recurrent aortic regurgitation, Restr Restriction, RZ triangular resection, SI Sievers type, TEE transoesophageal echocardiography

ISSN: 1749-8090