AbstractOBJECTIVESThere are conflicting views regarding the status of valve-sparing root replacement (VSRR) as a proper treatment for acute type A aortic dissection (AAAD). Our goal was to compare the early and late outcomes of VSRR versus those of the Bentall procedure in patients with AAAD.METHODSWe performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of 9 studies to compare the outcomes of VSRR with those of the Bentall procedure in patients with AAAD. We focused on the following issues: early and late mortality rates, re-exploration, thromboembolization/bleeding events, infective endocarditis and reintervention rates.RESULTSA total of 706 patients with AAAD who underwent aortic root surgery were analysed; 254 patients were treated with VSRR and 452 with the Bentall procedure. VSRR was associated with a reduced risk of early death [odds ratio (OR) 0.34; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.21–0.57] and late death (OR 0.34; 95% CI 0.21–0.57) compared with the Bentall procedure. No statistically significant difference was observed between the VSRR and Bentall groups with pooled ORs (OR 0.77; 95% CI 0.47–1.27, OR 0.61; 95% CI 0.32–1.18 and OR 0.71; 95% CI 0.23–2.15) for re-exploration, thromboembolization/bleeding and postoperative infective endocarditis, respectively. An increased risk of reintervention was observed for the VSRR compared to the Bentall group (OR 3.79; 95% CI 1.27–11.30). The pooled rate of reintervention incidence was 1.6% (95% CI 0.0–3.7%) and 0.4% (95% CI 0.0–1.3%) for the VSRR and the Bentall groups, respectively.CONCLUSIONSVSRR in patients with AAAD can be performed in experienced centres with excellent short- and long-term outcomes compared to those with the Bentall procedure and thus should be recommended especially for active young patients.
Surgical repair of Stanford type A aortic dissection in elderly patients: a contemporary systematic review and meta-analysis
