Valve Sparing vs Composite Valve Graft Root Replacement: Propensity Score–Matched Analysis

Abstract

BackgroundBoth valve-sparing root replacement and composite valve graft (CVG) are acceptable options in aortic root replacement. We compare outcomes of these 2 approaches and durability of the aortic valve. MethodsA consecutive 1635 patients without acute dissection underwent primary aortic root replacement from 1997 to 2022; 473 (29%) underwent valve-sparing root replacement, and 1162 (71%) received CVG. Propensity score matching was used to reduce baseline differences. ResultsThe CVG group was older (59 ± 14 years vs 49 ± 14 years; P < .001) with more comorbidities, such as hypertension (88.4% vs 66.4%; P < .001), diabetes (7% vs 1.7%; P < .001), ischemic heart disease (5.1% vs 1.3%; P = .001), pulmonary disease (6.6% vs 1.3%; P < .001), renal impairment (8.6% vs 1.3%; P < .001), class III-IV heart failure (35% vs 9.2%; P < .001), bicuspid aortic valves (44.8% vs 24.1%; P < .001), and severe aortic insufficiency (50.2% vs 13.2%; P < .001). Operative mortality was 0.4% (0% in valve sparing); incidence of major postoperative complications was 2.9% (3.6% vs 1.1%; P = .009). Ten-year survival was 93.1% (91.2% vs 97.7%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.7; 95% CI, 0.9-3.3; P = .120). Mean follow-up was 65 ± 60 months; aortic valve reoperations were similar (5.8% vs 5.7%; HR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.4-1.4; P = .401). Recurrent moderate-severe aortic insufficiency was less prevalent in CVG (6.1% vs 11.1%; HR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.07-0.27; P < .001). Propensity score matching identified 225 pairs. There was no difference in 10-year survival or reoperations. Recurrent moderate-severe aortic insufficiency was higher with valve sparing. ConclusionsBoth valve-sparing operations and CVG provide excellent early and late outcomes out to 10 years. Valve sparing is associated with a higher risk for development of aortic insufficiency but no difference in reoperations.