A systematic review and meta-analysis of mechanical vs biological composite aortic root replacement, early and 1-year results
- 169 Downloads
Composite aortic root replacement is a standard procedure for various aortic root pathologies. This systematic review was set to identify the postoperative outcomes for composite mechanical root replacement (mCRR) compared to composite biological root replacement (bCRR).
We systematically reviewed four major databases for all papers assessing outcomes in composite root replacement. Articles selected were chosen by two reviewers. Amongst our inclusion and exclusion criteria, all pediatric populations were excluded as were studies with a cohort less than 50 patients.
We identified seven studies that conformed to our inclusion criteria and incorporated 2240 patients. In-hospital mortality was higher but non-significant in the mechanical group (6.1 vs 4.2% respectively). There was no significant difference demonstrated in the risk of in-hospital stroke, late stroke and re-operation in either groups. Additionally, there was no significant difference in: endocarditis, 1-year mortality, 5-year mortality, mean cardiopulmonary or aortic cross-clamp time.
Composite mechanical root offers no superiority to composite biological root. There is a significant increase in the perioperative bleeding amongst composite mechanical root cohort. There is a need for further randomized control trail to assess the efficacy of either methods.
KeywordsAortic root Aneurysm Composite root Valve
Mechanical composite root replacement
Biological composite root replacement
Composite aortic valve graft
Mean weighted difference
Valve sparing replacement
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors have declared that no conflict of interest exists.
- 8.Etz CD, von Etz CD, Girrbach FF, von Aspern K, Battellini R, Dohmen P, et al. Longevity after aortic root replacement: is the mechanically valved conduit really the gold standard for quinquagenarians? Circulation. 2013;128(11 Suppl 1):S253–62.Google Scholar
- 17.2014 ESC Guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of aortic diseases. Eur Heart J 2014;35:2873–926.Google Scholar
- 18.Ruel M, Chan V, Bédard P, Kulik A, Ressler L, Lam BK et al. Very long-term survival implications of heart valve replacement with tissue versus mechanical prostheses in adults < 60 years of age. Circulation. 2007;116(11 Suppl):I294–I300.Google Scholar
- 21.Sts.org (2017) Adult Cardiac Surgery Database Public Reporting|STS. [online] Available at: https://www.sts.org/adult-public-reporting-module. Accessed 13 Apr 2017.
- 22.2010 ACCF, AHA/, AATS/ACR/ASA/SCA/SCAI/SIR/STS/. SVM guidelines for the diagnosis and management of patients with thoracic aortic disease. Exec Summ (Circulation). 2010;121:1544–79.Google Scholar
- 27.Akpinar B, Güden M, Aytekin S, Sanisoglu I, Sagbas E, Özbek U, et al. The use of stentless valves for root replacement during repair of ascending aortic aneurysms with aortic valve regurgitation. Heart Surg Forum. 2002;5:52–6.Google Scholar
- 29.Byrne JG, Karavas AN, Aklog L, Adams DH, Cheung AC, Cohn LH, Aranki SF. Aortic valve reoperation after homograft or autograft replacement. J Heart Valve Dis. 2001;10:451–7.Google Scholar