Is aortic valve repair or replacement with a bioprosthetic valve the best option for a patient with severe aortic regurgitation?

A best evidence topic in cardiac surgery was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was whether it is best to repair or replace the aortic valve with a bioprosthesis in young patients with severe aortic regurgitation as the patients do not like to take warfarin for the rest of life. Altogether 74 papers were found using the reported search, of which 10 represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. The authors, journal, date, country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes and results of these papers are tabulated. The results of the reported studies provided interesting results. All the studies identified are retrospective. Three papers reported the results about the Ross operation for aortic valve (AV) disease. Freedom from autograft reoperation at 10 years was from 81 to 84%, at 15 years 92% and at 18 years 51%. Freedom from aortic insufficiency (AI) (moderate to severe) at 15 years was 89.7%. Four papers reported that freedom from AV reoperation after AV repair at 5 years was from 86 to 94% and at 8 years was from 83 to 93%. Freedom from recurrent AI (>2+) at 5 years was from 85 to 94%. One study showed that reoperation-free survival after AV repair for rheumatic valve disease at 160 months was 85%. Two papers compared AV repair with aortic valve replacement (AVR) with a bioprosthetic valve and found that freedom from AV reoperation at 5 years was from 90 to 91% for the repair group and 94 to 98% for AVR. Freedom from AI (moderate or severe) at 5 years was 79% for the repair group and 94% for AVR. Aortic valve repair yielded good early and mid-term results. It is a viable alternative to replacement with a bioprosthesis, especially for young patients who did not like to take warfarin. The Ross operation appeared to be a good choice for selected patients with AV disease.