PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
March 16, 2026SHILAP Revista de lepidopterología0 citationsOpen Access

The “floating” valve, a modified bioroot Bentall procedure

DDDavid DerishOLOliver Sebastian LeeRHRoupen Hatzakorzian

Key Result

The modified bioroot Bentall procedure demonstrated an operative mortality of 0% compared to 0.7% with traditional mechanical prostheses in a propensity-matched cohort of 1,210 patients.

Key Points

  • This review aims to evaluate the modified bioroot Bentall procedure and its clinical implications for patients with aortic root disease.
  • Reviewed contemporary evidence on the modified bioroot Bentall procedure.
  • Examined surgical techniques and patient selection criteria.
  • Analyzed outcomes related to hemodynamics and valve durability.
  • Floating valve placement enhances hemodynamics and minimizes prosthesis-patient mismatch.
  • Provides feasibility for valve-in-valve procedures and facilitates coronary re-access.
  • Identified barriers include uncertain long-term durability of biological heart valves and lack of extensive randomized evidence.

Structured PICO

Does the "floating" bioroot Bentall procedure improve hemodynamics and clinical outcomes compared to traditional mechanical Bentall in patients requiring aortic root replacement?

P
Population
Patients with aortic root disease requiring aortic root replacement, particularly younger, small-annulus, or anti-coagulation-averse patients
I
Intervention
"Floating" bioroot Bentall procedure (self-assembled biological heart valve integrated within a synthetic vascular conduit with supra-annular placement)
C
Comparator
Classic Bentall procedure using mechanical heart valves (MHVs) or preassembled composite grafts
O
Outcome
Surgical outcomes, hemodynamics, and prosthesis-patient mismatch

The "floating" bioroot Bentall procedure is a promising, anticoagulation-free alternative to mechanical root replacement that optimizes hemodynamics and facilitates future transcatheter valve-in-valve interventions.

Main Result

Effect estimate: RR 1.00 (95% CI null)

Absolute Event Rate: 0% vs 0.7%

p-value: p=null

Limitations

  • Lack of long-term randomized evidence
  • Uncertain long-term BHV durability
  • uncertain long-term BHV durability
  • lack of long-term randomized evidence
  • variability in graft selection, surgical expertise, and healthcare infrastructure

Abstract

With a rising incidence of aortic root disease globally, the Bentall procedure remains the gold standard for aortic root replacement. Unfortunately, the classic mechanical heart valves (MHVs) often employed in these surgeries require lifelong anticoagulation, carrying serious bleeding or thrombo-embolic risks and incurring significant lifestyle changes for patients. Recent advances have shifted focus towards biological heart valves (BHVs), leading to the emergence of a bioroot Bentall which can integrate a “floating” BHV within a synthetic vascular conduit. We reviewed contemporary evidence on this surgery to define indications, outcomes and knowledge gaps. This narrative review highlights surgical techniques, patient selection criteria, and surgical outcomes. Uniquely, “floating” valve placement improves hemodynamics and reduces prosthesis-patient mismatch. Additional advantages included valve-in-valve (ViV) feasibility and easier coronary re-access, while persisting barriers were uncertain long-term BHV durability and a lack of long-term randomized evidence. Emerging technologies, such as advanced biomaterials, and global demand for cardiac surgical care, are likely to further popularise this type of bioroot Bentall. Clinical preferences are shifting towards anticoagulation-free solutions, especially for younger, small-annulus, or anti-coagulation-averse patients. The “floating” bioroot Bentall is a compelling alternative to the use of traditional mechanical prostheses, offering a balance between durability and quality of life. Prospective registries and larger head-to-head trials are now required to benchmark floating bioroot Bentall on survival, valve durability, cost-effectiveness, and patient-reported outcomes. Future research should focus on optimizing BHV durability and refining surgical techniques to further improve clinical outcomes.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Derish et al. (2026) studied aortic root disease (n=1,210). modified bioroot Bentall procedure vs. traditional mechanical prostheses (MHVs) was evaluated on operative mortality (RR 1.00, 95% CI null, p=null). The modified bioroot Bentall procedure demonstrated an operative mortality of 0% compared to 0.7% with traditional mechanical prostheses in a propensity-matched cohort of 1,210 patients.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69b79d538166e15b153aacbahttps://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2026.1760063
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Economic Considerations in Access to Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement2022 · 27 citations
  2. 2Mechanical versus bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement2017 · 366 citations
  3. 3Outcomes of Balloon-Expandable Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Younger Patients in the Low-Risk Era2024 · 44 citations
  4. 4The Ross procedure is under-used although long-term results show superior results to those obtained following mechanical aortic valve replacement2016 · 14 citations
  5. 5Hemodynamic effect of supra-annular implantation of SAPIEN 3 balloon expandable valve2024 · 6 citations