Aortic Valve Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Published Literature

Background : It is widely accepted that aortic valve disease is surgically managed with aortic valve replacement (AVR) using different available prostheses. The long-term survival, durability of the valve, and freedom from reoperation after AVR are well established in published literature. Over the past two decades, aortic valve repair (AVr) has evolved into an accepted surgical option for patients with aortic valve disease. We review and analyze the published literature on AVr. Methods : A systematic review of the current literature was performed through three electronic databases from inception to August 2013 to identify all relevant studies relating to aortic valve repair. Articles selected were chosen by two reviewers. Articles were excluded if they contained a pediatric population or if the patient number was less than 50.

Results: Twenty-four studies conformed to the inclusion criteria for inclusion in the systematic review. In total, 4986 patients underwent aortic valve repair. 7 studies represented bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) repair, 5 studies represented cusp prolapse, and 3 studies represented valve repair with root dilation or aneurysm. Overall weighted in-hospital mortality for all studies was low (1.46% ± 1.21). Preoperative aortic insufficiency (AI) ≥ 2+ did not correlate to reoperation for valve failure (Pearson's Rs 0.2705, P = 0.2585). AI at discharge was reported in 9 studies with a mean AI ≥ 2+ in 6.1% of patients. Weighted average percentage for valve reoperation following BAV repair was 10.23% ± 3.2. Weighted average reoperation following cusp prolapse repair was 3.83 ± 1.96. Weighted average reoperation in aortic valve sparing procedures with root replacement was 4.25% ± 2.46. Although there are limitations and complications of prosthetic valves, especially for younger individuals, there is ample published literature that confers strong evidence for AVR. On the contrary, aortic valve repair may be a useful option for selected patients, but there is lack of uniformity in data and absence of compelling supporting evidence. An international multi-center study comparing and assessing the results between AVR & AVr is the next step required. Currently, higher levels of evidence do not exist for aortic valve repair.