Reported outcome after valve-sparing aortic root replacement for aortic root aneurysm: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Valve-sparing aortic root techniques have progressively gained ground in the treatment of aortic root aneurysm and aortic insufficiency. By avoiding anticoagulation therapy they offer a good alternative to composite graft replacement. This systematic review describes the reported outcome of valve-sparing aortic root replacement, focusing on the remodeling and reimplantation technique. A systematic literature search on the characteristics of and outcomes after valve-sparing aortic root replacement revealed 1,659 articles. The inclusion criteria were a focus on valve-sparing aortic root replacement in adults with aortic root aneurysm, presentation of survival data, and inclusion of at least 30 patients. Data were pooled by inverse variance weighting and analyzed by linear regression. Of 1,659 articles published between January 1, 2000, and January 1, 2014, 31 were included (n = 4,777 patients). The mean age at operation was 51 ± 14.7 years, and 14% of patients had a bicuspid aortic valve. The reimplantation technique was used in 72% and remodeling in 27% (1% other). No clinical advantage in terms of survival and reoperation of one technique over the other was found. Cusp repair was performed in 33%. Pooled early mortality was 2% (n = 103). During follow-up (21,716 patient-years), 262 patients died (survival 92%), and 228 (5%) underwent reoperation, mainly valve replacement. Major adverse valve-related events were low (1.66% patient-years). Preoperative severe aortic valve regurgitation showed a trend toward higher reoperation rate. Remodeling and reimplantation techniques show comparable survival and valve durability results, providing a valid alternative to composite valve replacement. The heterogeneity in the data underlines the need for a collaborative effort to standardize outcome reporting.