Chris Ho Ming Wong1, Jeffrey Shi Kai Chan1, Dilan Sanli2, Rashad Rahimli3, Amer Harky4,5. 1. Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, New Territories, Hong Kong. 2. Gundogmus National Town Hospital, Antalya, Turkey. 3. Faculty of Medicine, Bulent Ecevit University, Zonguldak, Turkey. 4. School of Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK. 5. Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Liverpool Heart and Chest Hospital, Liverpool, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To systematically compare clinical outcomes between aortic valve repair and replacement in patients with aortic regurgitation. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was undertaken among the four major databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Ovid) to identify all published data comparing clinical outcomes of aortic valve repair vs replacement. Database searched from inception to November 2018. RESULTS: A total of 1071 patients were analyzed in eight articles. Mean age was similar in both groups of patients (47.2 ± 12.8 vs 48.3 ± 12.7 years, P = 0.83, aortic valve repair and replacement, respectively). The preoperative left ventricular ejection fraction was better in the repair group (56.7% ± 4.8 vs 53.3% ± 4.2, P = 0.005). The rate of moderate-to-severe regurgitation and bicuspid aortic valve were similar in both cohorts (81% vs 78%, P = 0.90% and 58% vs 55%, P = 0.46). In-hospital and 1-year mortality was lower in repair cohort, although not reaching statistical significance (1.3% vs 3.6%, P = 0.12; 5.9% vs 9.3%, P = 0.77). Reoperation rate was higher in repair patients at 1 year (8.8% vs 3.7%, P = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Aortic valve repair offers comparable perioperative outcomes to aortic valve replacement in aortic regurgitation patients at the expense of higher late reintervention rate. Larger trials with long-term follow-up are required to confirm the long-term benefits of aortic valve repair.
OBJECTIVE: To systematically compare clinical outcomes between aortic valve repair and replacement in patients with aortic regurgitation. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was undertaken among the four major databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Ovid) to identify all published data comparing clinical outcomes of aortic valve repair vs replacement. Database searched from inception to November 2018. RESULTS: A total of 1071 patients were analyzed in eight articles. Mean age was similar in both groups of patients (47.2 ± 12.8 vs 48.3 ± 12.7 years, P = 0.83, aortic valve repair and replacement, respectively). The preoperative left ventricular ejection fraction was better in the repair group (56.7% ± 4.8 vs 53.3% ± 4.2, P = 0.005). The rate of moderate-to-severe regurgitation and bicuspid aortic valve were similar in both cohorts (81% vs 78%, P = 0.90% and 58% vs 55%, P = 0.46). In-hospital and 1-year mortality was lower in repair cohort, although not reaching statistical significance (1.3% vs 3.6%, P = 0.12; 5.9% vs 9.3%, P = 0.77). Reoperation rate was higher in repair patients at 1 year (8.8% vs 3.7%, P = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Aortic valve repair offers comparable perioperative outcomes to aortic valve replacement in aortic regurgitationpatients at the expense of higher late reintervention rate. Larger trials with long-term follow-up are required to confirm the long-term benefits of aortic valve repair.