Advertisement

General Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery

, Volume 67, Issue 1, pp 70–76 | Cite as

A systematic review and meta-analysis of mechanical vs biological composite aortic root replacement, early and 1-year results

  • Mohamad Bashir
  • Amer Harky
  • Saied Froghi
  • Benjamin Adams
  • Megan Garner
  • Prity Gupta
  • Aung Oo
  • Rakesh Uppal
SPECIAL EDITION Controversies in Surgery for Thoracic Aorta
  • 169 Downloads

Abstract

Objective

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).

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusions

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.

Keywords

Aortic root Aneurysm Composite root Valve 

Abbreviations

mCRR

Mechanical composite root replacement

bCRR

Biological composite root replacement

CVG

Composite aortic valve graft

RR

Risk ratio

MWD

Mean weighted difference

VSR

Valve sparing replacement

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors have declared that no conflict of interest exists.

References

  1. 1.
    Bentall H, De Bono A. A technique for complete replacement of the ascending aorta. Thorax. 1968;23:338–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kouchoukos NT, Karp RB, Lell WA. Replacement of the ascending aorta and aortic valve with a composite graft: results in 25 patients. Ann Thorac Surg. 1977;24:140–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bachet J, Termignon JL, Goudot B, Dreyfus G, Piquois A, Brodaty D, et al. Aortic root replacement with a composite graft: factors influencing immediate and long-term results. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 1996;10:207–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Galla JD, Lansman SL, Spielvogel D, Minanov OP, Ergin MA, Bodian CA, et al. Bioprosthetic valved conduit aortic root reconstruction: the Mount Sinai experience. Ann Thorac Surg. 2002;74:S1769–72 (discussion S92-9).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Urbanski PP, Heinz N, Zhan X, Hijazi H, Zacher M, Diegeler A. Modified bio-Bentall procedure: 10-year experience. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2010;37:1317–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Moher D, et al. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet. 1999;354(9193):1896–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Byrne JG, Gudbjartsson T, Karavas AN, Mihaljevic T, Phillips BJ, Aranki SF, et al. Biological vs. mechanical aortic root replacement. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2003;23(3):305–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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
  9. 9.
    Lehr EJ, Wang PZ, Oreopoulos A, Kanji H, Norris C, Macarthur R. Midterm outcomes and quality of life of aortic root replacement: mechanical vs biological conduits. Can J Cardiol. 2011;27(2):262.e15–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ehrlich MP, Ergin MA, McCullough JN, Lansman SL, Galla JD, Bodian CA, Griepp RB. Favorable outcome after composite valve-graft replacement in patients older than 65 years. Ann Thorac Surg. 2001;71(5):1454–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nakamura K, Asai T, Murakami M, Saitoh Y, Yamaguchi H. Early results of Bentall-type operations during the last 10 years: comparison of mechanical valves and stentless bioprostheses. Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2007;55(1):6–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zafar MA, Farkas EA, Javier A, Anderson M, Gilani O, Elefteriades JA. Are thromboembolic and bleeding complications a drawback for composite aortic root replacement? Ann Thorac Surg. 2012;94(3):737–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Etz CD, Bischoff MS, Bodian C, Roder F, Brenner R, Griepp RB, Di Luozzo G. The Bentall procedure: is it the gold standard? A series of 597 consecutive cases. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2010;140(6 Suppl):S64–70 (discussion S86–91).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hopkins RA. Aortic valve leaflet sparing and salvage surgery: evolution of techniques for aortic root reconstruction. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2003;24:886–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Etz CD, Homann TM, Rane N, Bodian CA, Di Luozzo G, Plestis KA, et al. Aortic root reconstruction with a bioprosthetic valved conduit: a consecutive series of 275 procedures. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2007;133:1455–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Oxenham H, Bloomfield P, Wheatley DJ, Lee RJ, Cunningham J, Prescott RJ, Miller HC. Twenty year comparison of a Bjork-Shiley mechanical heart valve with porcine bioprostheses. Heart. 2003;89:715–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    2014 ESC Guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of aortic diseases. Eur Heart J 2014;35:2873–926.Google Scholar
  18. 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
  19. 19.
    Kulik A, Bédard P, Lam BK, Rubens FD, Hendry PJ, Masters RG, et al. Mechanical versus bioprosthetic valve replacement in middle-aged patients. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2006;30:485–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Brown ML, Schaff HV, Lahr BD, Mullany CJ, Sundt TM, Dearani JA, et al. Aortic valve replacement in patients aged 50 to 70 years: improved outcome with mechanical versus biologic prostheses. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2008;135:878–84 (discussion 884).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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. 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
  23. 23.
    Kallenbach K, Kojic D, Oezsoez M, Bruckner T, Sandrio S, Arif R, et al. Treatment of ascending aortic aneurysms using different surgical techniques: a single-centre experience with 548 patients. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2013;44(2):337–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lim JY, Kim JB, Jung SH, Choo SJ, Chung CH, Lee JW. Surgical management of aortic root dilatation with advanced aortic regurgitation: bentall operation versus valve-sparing procedure. Korean J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2012;45:141–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zehr KJ, Orszulak TA, Mullany CJ, Matloobi A, Daly RC, Dearani JA, et al. Surgery for aneurysms of the aortic root: a 30-year experience. Circulation. 2004;110:1364–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Badiu CC, Deutsch MA, Sideris C, Krane M, Hettich I, Voss B, Mazzitelli D, Lange R. Aortic root replacement: comparison of clinical outcome between different surgical techniques. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2014;46(4):685–92 (discussion 692).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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
  28. 28.
    O’Brien MF, Stafford EG, Gardner MA, Pohlner PG, Tesar PJ, Cochrane AD, Mau TK, Gall KL, Smith SE. Allograft aortic valve replacement: long-term follow-up. Ann Thorac Surg. 1995;60:S65–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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
  30. 30.
    Stamou SC, Williams ML, Gunn TM, Hagberg RC, Lobdell KW, Kouchoukos NT. Aortic root surgery in the United States: a report from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons database. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2015;149(1):116–22.e4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japanese Association for Thoracic Surgery 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mohamad Bashir
    • 1
  • Amer Harky
    • 1
  • Saied Froghi
    • 2
  • Benjamin Adams
    • 1
  • Megan Garner
    • 1
  • Prity Gupta
    • 1
  • Aung Oo
    • 1
  • Rakesh Uppal
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Cardiac Surgery, Barts Heart CentreSt. Bartholomew’s HospitalLondonUK
  2. 2.Department of Surgery, Imperial College NHS TrustHammersmith HospitalLondonUK

Personalised recommendations