Valve-Sparing Root Replacement Versus Composite Valve Grafting in Aortic Root Dilation: A Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND

Aortic valve-sparing operations theoretically have fewer stroke and bleeding complications but may increase late reoperation risk versus composite valve grafts.

METHODS

We meta-analyzed all studies comparing aortic valve-sparing (reimplantation and remodelling) and composite valve-grafting (bioprosthetic and mechanical) procedures. Early outcomes were all-cause mortality, reoperation for bleeding, myocardial infarction, and thromboembolism/stroke. Long-term outcomes included all-cause mortality, reintervention, bleeding, and thromboembolism/stroke. Studies exclusively investigating dissection or pediatric populations were excluded.

RESULTS

A total of 3794 patients who underwent composite valve grafting and 2424 who underwent aortic valve-sparing procedures were included from 9 adjusted and 17 unadjusted observational studies. Mean follow-up was 5.8 ± 3.0 years. Aortic valve sparing was not associated with any difference in early mortality, bleeding, myocardial infarction, or thromboembolic complications. Late mortality was significantly lower after valve sparing (incident risk ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54-0.87; P < .01). Late thromboembolism/stroke (incident rate ratio, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.22-0.60; P < .01) and bleeding (incident rate ratio, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.11-0.42; P < .01) risks were lower after valve sparing. Procedure type did not affect late reintervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Aortic valve sparing appears to be safe and associated with reduced late mortality, thromboembolism/stroke, and bleeding compared with composite valve grafting. Late durability is equivalent. Aortic valve sparing should be considered in patients with favorable aortic valve morphology.