Why the study?
The efficacy of composite valve graft versus stentless aortic root replacement in patients with aortic valve and root pathologies remains debated.
Does stentless aortic root replacement improve long-term survival and in-hospital outcomes compared to composite valve grafts in patients requiring aortic root replacement?
Does stentless aortic root replacement improve long-term survival and in-hospital outcomes compared to composite valve grafts in patients requiring aortic root replacement?
Stentless aortic root replacement, particularly using xenografts, provides a significant long-term survival advantage and fewer neurological complications compared to composite valve grafts.
Comparative outcomes of CVG versus SARR remain uncertain in this cohort; leaves open optimal root replacement strategy for randomized trials.
Aim: The efficacy of composite valve graft (CVG) versus stentless aortic root replacement (SARR) in patients with aortic valve and root pathologies remains a subject of debate. This study aims to analyze the in-hospital outcomes and long-term survival of these two surgical approaches. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 594 patients who underwent ARR between July 2003 and December 2023. Of these, 346 received a stentless aortic root and 248 CVG (100 biological and 148 mechanical). Propensity score matching (PSM) was utilized to create well-balanced cohorts based on preoperative demographics and intraoperative characteristics. Univariable and multivariable regression analyses were performed to evaluate in-hospital mortality and long-term survival rates. Kaplan-Meier curves were constructed to visualize survival outcomes. Results: After PSM, 212 patients in each group were well-balanced in terms of baseline characteristics. The analysis of in-hospital outcomes revealed no significant differences between the SARR and CVG groups for key outcomes except neurological complications that were consistently higher in the CVG group, with a significant difference observed in both unmatched (8.4% vs. 4.9%, P = 0.014) and matched cohorts (8.5% vs. 4.3%, P = 0.022). Long-term survival analysis in the matched cohorts demonstrated a statistically significant survival advantage for the SARR group, with a 20-year survival rate of 54% compared to 47% for the CVG group (log-rank P value of 0.047). Further analysis by specific graft type within the matched groups suggested that xenografts might offer a significant survival advantage (log-rank P value of 0.009). Conclusions: While SARR and CVG provided similar in-hospital outcomes, SARR, particularly xenografts, demonstrated a significant long-term survival advantage. Xenografts may be a preferable option for patients, especially those with longer life expectancies, due to their durability and reduced need for anticoagulation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Comanici et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: