Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2021 Jan;36(1):178-187.
doi: 10.1111/jocs.15132. Epub 2020 Oct 21.

Outcomes in techniques of valve sparing aortic root replacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Steven Toh  1 , Juliana Ang  1 , Joel Jacob George  1 , Ovin Jayawardena  1 , Samiha Mahbub  2 , Amer Harky  3   4   5
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Outcomes in techniques of valve sparing aortic root replacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Steven Toh et al. J Card Surg. 2021 Jan.

Abstract

Objective: To compare clinical outcomes of reimplantation versus remodeling in patients undergoing valve-sparing aortic root replacement (VSRR) surgery.

Method: Electronic database search at PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Ovid, and Google scholar was performed from inception to January 2020. Primary outcomes were aortic valve (AV) reintervention and postoperative grade of aortic insufficiency (AI) while secondary outcomes were 30-day mortality, reoperation for bleeding, and operative times.

Results: A total of 21 articles met the inclusion criteria. A total of 1283 patients had reimplantation while 1150 had remodeling. No difference in preoperative demographics was noted except reimplantation patients were younger (48 ± 16 vs. 56 ± 15 years; p < .00001). The cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic cross-clamp times were shorter in the remodeling cohort (168 ± 38 vs. 150 ± 37 min; p = .0001 and 133 ± 31 vs. 112 ± 30 min; p = .0002, respectively). No difference in concomitant total arch surgery (14% in reimplantation vs. 15% in remodeling; p = .53). Postoperatively, there were similar stroke rates (3% in both cohorts; p = .54), rates of reoperation for bleeding (9% in reimplantation vs. 12% in remodeling; p = .88), and 30-day mortality (3% in reimplantation vs. 4% in remodeling; p = .96). No difference in early AV reintervention (1% in reimplantation vs. 2% in remodeling; p = .07), and late AV reintervention (4% in reimplantation vs. 7% in remodeling; p = .07). The AI of +2 grade was significantly lower in the reimplantation cohort (5% vs. 8%; p = .01).

Conclusion: Our study shows comparable clinical outcomes between both techniques. The practice of each technique is largely center and surgeon dependent. Larger sample size cohorts with minimal confounding factors are required to confirm the above findings.

Keywords: David; VSRR; aorta; aortic surgery; root surgery; valve sparing.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

REFERENCES

    1. Lamana FDA, Dias RR, Duncan JA, 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;30(3):343-352. https://doi.org/10.5935/1678-9741.20150028
    1. Schafers H, Fries R, Langer F, Nikoloudakis N, Graeter T, Grundmann U. Valve-preserving replacement of the ascending aorta: remodeling versus reimplantation. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1998;116(6):990-996.
    1. Klotz S, Stock S, Sievers HH, et al. Survival and reoperation pattern after 20 years of experience with aortic valve-sparing root replacement in patients with tricuspid and bicuspid valves. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2018;155(4):1403-1411.
    1. 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;103:617-621.
    1. Yacoub MH, Fagan A, Tassano P, Radley-Smith R. Results of valve conserving operations for aortic regurgitation. Circulation. 1983;68:321-336.

LinkOut - more resources