Homograft implantation techniques in the aortic position: to preserve or replace the aortic root?

Abstract

Background: One determinant of durability of the homograft in the aortic position is the implantation technique. This study uses meta-analytical techniques to evaluate the differences in early and long-term outcomes of patients undergoing aortic homograft implantation with either a root replacement or a root preserving technique.

Methods: A systematic review of the literature (1965-2005) reporting results after homograft implantation in the aortic position with emphasis in the implantation technique was performed. Random and fixed-effects models were used. Cumulative and influential meta-analysis, graphic exploration, and sensitivity analysis were carried out to explain the heterogeneity between studies and to investigate potential publication bias.

Results: Eleven studies were included. None of the studies was randomized. There was no significant difference in early mortality between root replacement and root preserving groups (odds ratio = 2.57 with 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.68-9.72 in random-effects model) and the root replacement group had a significantly lower rate of reoperation during long-term follow-up (hazard ratio = 0.55 with 95% CI 0.38-0.80 in random-effects model). Subgroup analysis focusing on patients having the subcoronary technique for homograft implantation showed similar results. Significant heterogeneity between studies can be detected. No publication bias was found.

Conclusions: There was no significant difference in early mortality between root replacement and root preserving groups. However, the root replacement technique group had a significantly lower rate of reoperation during long-term follow-up. Excluding outliers identified in a funnel plot reduced the heterogeneity and reached a similar conclusion.