Comparative analysis of stentless aortic root and composite valve grafts for aortic root replacement: a retrospective single-centre study
Sections
Open Access Original Article
Comparative analysis of stentless aortic root and composite valve grafts for aortic root replacement: a retrospective single-centre study

Affiliation:

Department of Cardiac Surgery, Harefield Hospital, UB9 6JH London, United Kingdom

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7160-9230

Maria Comanici

Affiliation:

Department of Cardiac Surgery, Harefield Hospital, UB9 6JH London, United Kingdom

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4085-1294

Mohammad Yousuf Salmasi

Affiliation:

Department of Cardiac Surgery, Harefield Hospital, UB9 6JH London, United Kingdom

Fabio De Robertis

Affiliation:

Department of Cardiac Surgery, Harefield Hospital, UB9 6JH London, United Kingdom

Toufan Bahrami

Affiliation:

Department of Cardiac Surgery, Harefield Hospital, UB9 6JH London, United Kingdom

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6660-3141

Sunil K. Bhudia

Affiliation:

Department of Cardiac Surgery, Harefield Hospital, UB9 6JH London, United Kingdom

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6618-3730

Jullien A. Gaer

Affiliation:

Department of Cardiac Surgery, Harefield Hospital, UB9 6JH London, United Kingdom

Email: drrajashahzad@hotmail.com

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1325-0490

Shahzad G. Raja
*

Explor Cardiol. 2025;3:101259 DOl: https://doi.org/10.37349/ec.2025.101259

Received: March 01, 2025 Accepted: April 27, 2025 Published: May 29, 2025

Academic Editor: Alexandre Abizaid, Institute Dante Pazzanese de Cardiologia, Brazil

Abstract

Aim: The efficacy of composite valve graft (CVG) versus stentless aortic root replacement (SARR) in patients with aortic valve and root pathologies remains a subject of debate. This study aims to analyze the in-hospital outcomes and long-term survival of these two surgical approaches.

Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 594 patients who underwent ARR between July 2003 and December 2023. Of these, 346 received a stentless aortic root and 248 CVG (100 biological and 148 mechanical). Propensity score matching (PSM) was utilized to create well-balanced cohorts based on preoperative demographics and intraoperative characteristics. Univariable and multivariable regression analyses were performed to evaluate in-hospital mortality and long-term survival rates. Kaplan-Meier curves were constructed to visualize survival outcomes.

Results: After PSM, 212 patients in each group were well-balanced in terms of baseline characteristics. The analysis of in-hospital outcomes revealed no significant differences between the SARR and CVG groups for key outcomes except neurological complications that were consistently higher in the CVG group, with a significant difference observed in both unmatched (8.4% vs. 4.9%, P = 0.014) and matched cohorts (8.5% vs. 4.3%, P = 0.022). Long-term survival analysis in the matched cohorts demonstrated a statistically significant survival advantage for the SARR group, with a 20-year survival rate of 54% compared to 47% for the CVG group (log-rank P value of 0.047). Further analysis by specific graft type within the matched groups suggested that xenografts might offer a significant survival advantage (log-rank P value of 0.009).

Conclusions: While SARR and CVG provided similar in-hospital outcomes, SARR, particularly xenografts, demonstrated a significant long-term survival advantage. Xenografts may be a preferable option for patients, especially those with longer life expectancies, due to their durability and reduced need for anticoagulation.

Keywords

Aortic root replacement, composite valve graft, homograft, survival, xenograft

Introduction

Aortic root replacement (ARR) is a well-established surgical strategy for managing complex aortic root diseases, such as annulo-aortic ectasia, complicated endocarditis affecting native or prosthetic valves, and aortic dissections [1]. Current practice guidelines suggest different approaches based on patient age, recommending mechanical valves for younger patients and bioprosthetic valves for older individuals [2, 3]. However, these recommendations are primarily derived from studies of isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR) rather than comprehensive ARR.

Given these uncertainties, this study focuses on evaluating the long-term outcomes of two widely used approaches in ARR: stentless ARRs (SARRs) (including homografts and xenografts) and composite valve grafts (CVGs) (incorporating both biological and mechanical valves). By analysing 20 years of data, this study aims to provide clarity on the comparative effectiveness of these approaches by evaluating the impact on in-hospital outcomes and long-term survival thereby offering insights that can guide clinical decision-making in aortic root surgery.

Materials and methods

Data collection

This study involved a retrospective analysis of data from a prospectively collected cardiac surgery database (PATS; Dendrite Clinical Systems, Ltd, Oxford, UK). The PATS database contains comprehensive information on a wide range of variables related to cardiac surgery, including preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative details, as well as complications and mortality outcomes, for all patients treated at our institution. The data undergo regular validation and are submitted annually to the National Institute for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research (NICOR) as part of the National Adult Cardiac Surgery Audit registry. Information about death was obtained from the institutional database and the NHS Spine for all patients. Data regarding postoperative complications and survival were available for all patients in the study. This study adhered to the ethical standards set forth in the Declaration of Helsinki, and it was approved by the local audit committee. Given the retrospective nature of the study, the requirement for individual patient consent was waived.

Study population

We collected data on all ARR procedures performed at our institution between July 2003 and December 2023. All valve-sparing techniques were excluded from this analysis, focusing solely on patients who required complete valve and root replacement. The final sample consisted of 594 patients, of whom 346 received a stentless aortic root (including 97 homografts and 249 xenografts), and 248 received a CVG (comprising 100 biological and 148 mechanical valves).

Selection of surgical strategy

The choice of surgical strategy was based on the surgeon’s preference as well as dictated by patient characteristics. All interventions were performed under general anaesthesia via a midline sternotomy. We have previously described in detail the techniques of homograft replacement and xenograft root replacement [4]. Briefly, a full ARR with coronary artery reimplantation was performed using the largest implantable prosthesis. There was no subcoronary implantation procedure, and no reinforcement techniques or synthetic material were used to support the surgical anastomoses in homografts. The proximal anastomosis between the stentless (homograft/xenograft) root and the native aortic annulus was performed using multiple interrupted 3/0 or 4/0 braided polyester nonabsorbable sutures. The left and then the right coronary ostia were reimplanted into the respective ostia of the bioprosthesis using a running 5/0 polypropylene suture. In cases where a greater segment of the ascending aorta required resection, a straight polyethylene terephthalate tube (Gelweave Graft, Terumo Aortic, Vascutek, Renfrewshire, UK), chosen intraoperatively on the basis of the outer diameter of the distal end of the stentless root and of the proximal aortic arch, was interposed using a running 4/0 polypropylene suture. Because the height and angle between the native porcine coronary ostia in xenograft prostheses may be different from that in normal human anatomy, new ostia were fashioned to avoid tension, torsion, or kinking of the proximal coronary arteries.

The modified Bentall was performed using CVG. The mechanical composite graft of choice was the CarboSealTM composite conduit (LivaNova, Saluggia, Italy) formed by assembling a standard Carbomedics bileaflet mechanical prosthesis into a 10 cm straight vascular graft. The bio-Bentall was created by incorporating a bioprosthetic valve within a straight Dacron tube. The valve was secured to the conduit with interrupted or running 4/0 non-absorbable, monofilament, synthetic polypropylene suture. The choice of valve model was influenced by surgeon’s preference. The valve size was selected according to the patient’s body surface area, securing adequate effective orifice area. A graft 3–5 mm larger than the valve was used. Interrupted everting pledgeted 2/0 polyester sutures or semi-continuous 3/0 non-absorbable, monofilament, synthetic polypropylene suture were placed on the aortic annulus and passed through the Valsalva graft collar as well as the cuff of the valve prosthesis simultaneously to complete the proximal anastomosis. The coronary ostia were trimmed with a full-thickness 7–8 mm cuff of the aortic wall to create buttons and anastomosed with a 5/0 polypropylene running suture to corresponding holes in the Dacron graft.

Statistical analysis

Data description and analysis was performed in SPSS (SPSS Statistics 29.0.2.0, IBM Corp, Armonk, NY). Continuous variables are expressed as mean ± standard deviation if normally distributed and as median and interquartile range for the numerical variables not normally distributed. Categorical variables are shown as count and percentages. The Lilliefors (Kolmogorov-Smirnov) test was used for normality assessment. Comparison between continuous variables has been conducted using unpaired Student’s t-test if normally distributed and Mann-Whitney U-test if not normally distributed. Categorical variables have been compared using Pearson Chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test as appropriate.

To control for potential confounders within the dataset, we generated a propensity score for each patient using a multivariable logistic regression model. All 27 preoperative clinical variables listed in Table 1 were included as covariates in the logistic regression model to estimate the propensity score, with treatment type (SARR vs. CVG) as the binary dependent variable. Pairs of patients receiving either SARR or CVG were matched using a greedy 1:1 matching algorithm with a caliper of width equal to 0.2 standard deviations of the logit of the propensity score. The quality of the match was assessed by comparing selected pretreatment variables between the propensity score-matched groups using the standardized mean difference, where an absolute standardized difference of greater than 10% was considered indicative of meaningful covariate imbalance.

 Preoperative demographics of patients

VariableUnmatchedMatched
Composite valve graft
(n = 248)
Stentless aortic root
(n = 346)
P valueSMDComposite valve graft
(n = 212)
Stentless aortic root
(n = 212)
P valueSMD
Age, mean ± SD56.5 ± 13.360.2 ± 14.8< 0.0010.26357.5 ± 13.357.8 ± 14.80.4130.021
Female, n (%)51 (20.6)97 (28)0.0190.17447 (22.2)45 (21.2)0.4070.023
BMI, mean ± SD28.2 ± 6.327.4 ± 5.00.0370.21627.6 ± 5.427.7 ± 4.90.4070.021
NYHA class, n (%)< 0.0010.2680.4590.01
    I
    II
    III
    IV
62 (25)
66 (26.6)
89 (35.9)
31 (12.5)
54 (15.6)
89 (25.7)
137 (39.6)
66 (19.1)
43 (20.3)
59 (27.8)
83 (39.2)
27 (12.7)
39 (18.4)
65 (30.7)
81 (38.2)
27 (12.7)
Heart failure, n (%)0.0270.1620.3150.047
    Never
    Past
    Now
199 (80.2)
12 (4.8)
37 (14.9)
252 (72.8)
25 (7.2)
69 (19.9)
170 (80.2)
11 (5.2)
31 (14.6)
173 (81.6)
12 (5.7)
27 (12.7)
Previous cardiac surgery, n (%)34 (13.7)107 (30.9)< 0.0010.20233 (15.6)40 (18.9)0.1850.038
Hypertension, n (%)170 (68.5)228 (65.9)0.2490.057144 (67.9)143 (67.5)0.4590.010
Tobacco use, n (%)0.1630.0570.0920.010
    Never
    Past
    Current
133 (53.6)
90 (36.3)
25 (10.1)
165 (47.7)
148 (42.8)
33 (9.5)
116 (54.7)
73 (34.4)
23 (10.8)
102 (48.1)
82 (38.7)
28 (13.2)
Diabetes, n (%)14 (5.6)27 (7.8)0.1530.08612 (5.7)16 (7.5)0.2180.076
Hypercholesterolaemia, n (%)94 (37.9)144 (41.6)0.1820.07682 (38.7)85 (40.1)0.3830.029
COPD, n (%)21 (8.5)35 (10.1)0.2490.05720 (9.4)15 (7.1)0.1890.086
PAD, n (%)30 (12.1)35 (10.1)0.2230.07822 (10.4)21 (9.9)0.4360.087
Previous TIA/CVA, n (%)0.0100.1980.1450.088
    TIA
    CVA
9 (3.6)
12 (4.8)
19 (5.5)
32 (9.2)
9 (4.2)
12 (5.7)
7 (3.3)
8 (3.8)
Preoperative AF, n (%)24 (9.7)29 (8.4)0.2930.04520 (9.4)16 (7.5)0.2440.068
Renal impairment, n (%)< 0.0010.3530.2190.075
    Moderate
    Severe
    Dialysis
59 (23.8)
11 (4.4)
0 (0)
105 (30.3)
39 (11.3)
3 (0.9)
54 (25.5)
11 (5.2)
0 (0)
48 (22.6)
16 (7.5)
2 (0.9)
LVEF, n (%)0.0130.1850.1180.078
    Good
    Moderate
    Poor
165 (66.5)
70 (28.2)
13 (5.2)
262 (75.7)
70 (20.2)
14 (4)
148 (69.8)
57 (26.9)
7 (3.3)
162 (76.4)
42 (19.8)
8 (3.8)
Left main stem involvement, n (%)3 (1.2)5 (1.4)0.4030.0213 (1.4)3 (1.4)0.5000.001
Severity of CAD, n (%)0.0080.2070.2880.054
    Single
    Double
    Triple
14 (5.6)
11 (4.4)
3 (1.2)
39 (11.3)
17 (4.9)
12 (3.5)
13 (6.1)
11 (5.2)
3 (1.4)
21 (9.9)
9 (4.2)
4 (1.9)
Aortic valve disease, n (%)0.0570.1320.3820.029
    AS
    AR
    Mixed
60 (24.2)
27 (10.9)
2 (0.8)
110 (31.8)
38 (11.0)
2 (0.6)
55 (25.9)
24 (11.3)
2 (0.9)
59 (27.8)
22 (10.4)
0 (0)
Existing pacemaker, n (%)0 (0)3 (0.9)0.0710.1320 (0)0 (0)0.9990.001
Cardiogenic shock, n (%)16 (6.5)16 (4.6)0.1660.08012 (5.7)7 (3.3)0.1210.096
Preoperative inotropes, n (%)16 (6.5)18 (5.2)0.2590.0537 (3.3)11 (5.2)0.1680.094
Preoperative IABP, n (%)0 (0)3 (0.9)0.0710.1320 (0)0 (0)0.9990.001
Preoperative intubation, n (%)11 (4.4)11 (3.2)0.2120.0666 (2.8)4 (1.9)0.2620.062
Operative urgency, n (%)0.2410.0580.3000.051
    Elective
    Urgent
    Emergency
    Salvage
129 (56)
44 (17.7)
57 (23)
8 (3.2)
166 (48)
130 (37.6)
43 (12.4)
7 (2)
126 (59.4)
38 (17.9)
43 (20.3)
5 (2.4)
116 (54.7)
67 (31.6)
24 (11.3)
5 (2.4)
Aortic pathology, n (%)0.2680.0610.2890.059
    Dissection
    Aneurysm
    Marfan
    Native valve IE
    Prosthetic valve IE
    Other
65 (26.2)
155 (62.5)
2 (0.8)
2 (0.8)
1 (0.4)
23 (9.3)
17 (4.9)
134 (38.7)
2 (0.6)
38 (11)
26 (7.5)
129 (37.3)
48 (22.6)
141 (66.5)
1 (0.5)
2 (0.9)
1 (0.5)
20 (9.4)
12 (5.7)
101 (47.6)
2 (0.9)
25 (11.8)
8 (3.8)
66 (31.1)
Logistic EuroSCORE, mean ± SD17.9 ± 17.725.8 ± 22 < 0.0010.35517.8 ± 17.818.1 ± 17.80.4250.086
Follow-up (years), mean ± SD4.7 ± 4.66.6 ± 4.60.4860.0284.6 ± 4.57.4 ± 4.70.5110.031

AF: atrial fibrillation; AR: aortic regurgitation; AS: aortic stenosis; BMI: body mass index; CAD: coronary artery disease; COPD: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; CVA: cerebrovascular accident; IABP: intra-aortic balloon pump; IE: infective endocarditis; LVEF: left ventricular ejection fraction; NYHA: New York Heart Association; PAD: peripheral arterial disease; SMD: standardized mean difference; TIA: transient ischaemic attack

A multiple logistic regression model was employed to identify predictors of in-hospital mortality and long-term survival rates. After performing univariable analysis, the final multivariable models were constructed using a stepwise approach, with P values guiding the selection of variables. The variables with a P value < 0.05 were included in the multivariable logistic regression model. Kaplan-Meier curves were generated to visualize survival outcomes across the study groups. The survival functions of the groups were compared using the log-rank test, with survival probabilities and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) reported at 5, 10, 15, and 20 years. Additionally, a Cox proportional hazards model was utilized to identify factors influencing long-term survival with all tests set to a significance level of 0.05.

Results

Patient demographics

The preoperative demographics of the study population revealed some significant differences between patients who underwent SARR and those who received a CVG before matching. Patients in the stentless aortic root group were generally older, with an average age of 60.2 years compared to 56.5 years in the CVG group (P < 0.001). The stentless group also had a higher proportion of females (28% vs. 20.6%, P = 0.019) and a slightly lower mean body mass index (BMI) (27.4 vs. 28.2, P = 0.037). Additionally, there were more patients with past or current heart failure and previous cardiac surgeries in the stentless group. After propensity score matching (PSM), these demographic differences were effectively balanced between the two groups, resulting in well-matched cohorts with no significant differences in key variables such as age, sex, BMI, New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, or previous cardiac history. The preoperative clinical characteristics for the patients are presented in Table 1.

Intraoperative characteristics

The intraoperative characteristics of the study population revealed several key differences between the patients who underwent SARR and those who received a CVG. Before matching, the mean cross-clamp time was significantly longer in the SARR group compared to the CVG group (159.6 ± 113.3 minutes vs. 134.1 ± 44.1 minutes, P < 0.001). Additionally, the stentless group had a shorter mean circulatory arrest time (2.1 ± 12 minutes vs. 6.6 ± 15.7 minutes, P < 0.001) and a higher lowest temperature during surgery (31.1° ± 4.2°C vs. 29.5° ± 6.0°C, P < 0.001). The use of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) also showed some variation between the groups.

After PSM, most of these differences were minimized, with the two groups becoming more comparable. The total duration of operation, cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time, and cross-clamp time were similar between the matched groups. However, the stentless aortic root group continued to have a slightly shorter mean circulatory arrest time (2.37 ± 14.1 minutes vs. 6.46 ± 15.7 minutes, P = 0.003) and a higher lowest temperature during surgery (31.4° ± 4.3°C vs. 29.7° ± 5.8°C, P < 0.001). The distribution of cardioplegia types and infusion modes, as well as the number of valves replaced and use of CABG, were well balanced between the groups post-matching. The intraoperative characteristics for the patients are presented in Table 2.

 Intraoperative characteristics

VariableUnmatchedMatched
Composite valve graft
(n = 248)
Stentless aortic root
(n = 346)
P valueComposite valve graft
(n = 212)
Stentless aortic root
(n = 212)
P value
Total duration of operation, mean ± SD388.5 ± 132.5398.5 ± 137.10.189386.1 ± 132.0369.1 ± 122.00.084
Mean CPB time, mean ± SD195.1 ± 88.7203.2 ± 820.126195.4 ± 89.4183.1 ± 65.10.052
Mean cross clamp time, mean ± SD134.1 ± 44.1159.6 ± 113.3< 0.001135.3 ± 43.8150.8 ± 136.30.058
Mean circulatory arrest time (min), mean ± SD6.6 ± 15.72.1 ± 12< 0.0016.46 ± 15.72.37 ± 14.10.003
Lowest temperature, mean ± SD29.5 ± 631.1 ± 4.2< 0.00129.7 ± 5.831.4 ± 4.3< 0.001
Cardioplegia temperature, n (%)0.200.071
    Cold
    Warm
    Cold & warm
238 (96)
3 (1.2)
7 (2.8)
318 (91.9)
6 (1.7)
22 (6.4)
203 (95.8)
2 (0.9)
7 (3.3)
195 (92.0)
5 (2.4)
12 (5.7)
Cardioplegia infusion mode, n (%)0.0670.366
    Antegrade
    Retrograde
    Mixed
144 (58.1)
0 (0)
104 (41.9)
178 (51.4)
3 (0.9)
165 (47.7)
118 (55.7)
0 (0)
94 (44.3)
120 (56.6)
3 (1.4)
89 (42.0)
Number of valves replaced, n (%)0.2030.108
    1
    2
    3
230 (92.7)
16 (6.5)
2 (0.8)
305 (88.2)
36 (10.4)
5 (1.4)
157 (74.1)
15 (7.1)
2 (0.9)
142 (67.0)
17 (8.0)
1 (0.5)
CABG, n (%)0.0350.222
    Yes
    No
39 (15.7)
209 (84.3)
74 (21.6)
271 (78.3)
34 (16.0)
178 (84.0)
40 (18.9)
172 (81.1)
Number of distal coronary anastomoses, n (%)0.0160.256
    0
    1
    2
    3
209 (84.3)
29 (11.7)
7 (2.8)
3 (1.2)
272 (78.6)
44 (12.7)
22 (6.4)
8 (2.3)
178 (84.0)
24 (11.3)
7 (3.3)
3 (1.4)
173 (81.6)
26 (12.3)
10 (4.7)
3 (1.4)

CABG: coronary artery bypass grafting; CPB: cardiopulmonary bypass

In-hospital outcomes

The analysis of in-hospital outcomes revealed no significant differences between the SARR group and the CVG group, both in the unmatched and matched cohorts, in terms of key outcomes such as low cardiac output syndrome, reoperation rates, and postoperative renal replacement therapy. Additionally, both groups had similar lengths of postoperative hospital stay and in-hospital mortality rates. However, neurological complications were consistently higher in the CVG group, with the unmatched analysis showing 8.4% of patients in the CVG group experiencing neurological events compared to 4.9% in the SARR group (P = 0.014). This trend persisted in the matched analysis, where neurological complications occurred in 8.5% of the CVG group compared to 4.3% in the SARR group (P = 0.022). These detailed in-hospital outcomes are presented in Table 3.

 In-hospital outcomes

VariableUnmatchedMatched
Composite valve graft
(n = 248)
Stentless aortic root
(n = 346)
P valueComposite valve graft
(n = 212)
Stentless aortic root
(n = 212)
P value
Low cardiac output, n (%)113 (45.6)170 (49.1)0.19696 (45.3)94 (44.3)0.423
Arrhythmias, n (%)0.0810.381
    AF
    VF
    CHB
73 (29.4)
10 (4)
7 (2.8)
77 (22.3)
10 (2.9)
32 (9.2)
59 (27.8)
9 (4.2)
7 (3.3)
44 (20.8)
7 (3.3)
15 (7.1)
Reoperation, n (%)0.4950.111
    Bleeding
    Other
20 (8.1)
5 (2)
32 (9.2)
5 (1.4)
17 (8.0)
3 (1.4)
13 (6.1)
1 (0.5)
Pulmonary complications, n (%)0.4430.140
    Re-intubation
    Tracheostomy
9 (3.6)
12 (4.8)
10 (2.9)
19 (5.5)
7 (3.3)
12 (5.7)
5 (2.4)
8 (3.8)
New neurological complications, n (%)0.0140.022
    TIA
    CVA
8 (3.2)
13 (5.2)
11 (3.2)
6 (1.7)
6 (2.8)
12 (5.7)
5 (2.4)
4 (1.9)
Sepsis, n (%)10 (4)10 (2.9)0.2506 (2.8)3 (1.4)0.299
Wound infection, n (%)0.4040.413
    Superficial
    Deep
3 (1.2)
3 (1.2)
7 (2.0)
2 (0.6)
3 (1.4)
2 (0.9)
6 (2.8)
1 (0.5)
Postoperative RRT, n (%)31 (12.5)47 (13.6)0.35028 (13.2)22 (10.4)0.184
Permanent RRT, n (%)11 (4.4)13 (3.8)0.3408 (3.8)7 (3.3)0.397
GI complications, n (%)7 (2.8)19 (5.4)0.1225 (2.4)8 (3.8)0.229
Pleural effusions requiring drainage, n (%)13 (5.2)33 (9.5)0.49113 (6.1)15 (7.1)0.302
Pericardial effusions requiring drainage, n (%)9 (3.6)5 (1.4)0.4916 (2.8)3 (1.4)0.302
MOF, n (%)15 (6.0)24 (6.9)0.33412 (5.7)10 (4.7)0.331
Postoperative hospital stay (days), n (%)19.4 ± 38.221.7 ± 38.50.31119.9 ± 40.715.1 ± 13.20.052
In-hospital mortality, n (%)24 (9.7)39 (11.3)0.26720 (9.4)13 (6.1)0.103

AF: atrial fibrillation; CHB: complete heart block; CVA: cerebrovascular accident; MOF: multi organ failure; RRT: renal replacement therapy; TIA: transient ischaemic attack; VF: ventricular fibrillation

The univariable analysis (Table 4) identified several predictors of in-hospital mortality. Key factors that were significantly associated with higher in-hospital mortality in both the unmatched and matched cohorts included older age, higher NYHA classification, previous cardiac surgery, diabetes, hypertension, renal disease, extensive coronary artery disease (CAD), aortic regurgitation (AR), preoperative cardiogenic shock, the need for preoperative inotropes or intubation, and aortic dissection as the underlying pathology. Notably, the incidence of cardiogenic shock and AR demonstrated a particularly strong association with in-hospital mortality, as evidenced by high odds ratios (ORs) in both analyses.

 Univariable regression analysis for in-hospital mortality

VariableUnmatchedMatched
OR95% CIP valueOR95% CIP value
Age1.0401.018–1.062< 0.0011.0531.020–1.086< 0.001
Female gender1.7250.990–3.0050.0542.2211.049–4.7060.037
BMI0.9740.926–1.0250.3140.9820.915–1.0550.629
NYHA classification1.9891.466–2.698< 0.0011.8261.208–2.7590.004
HF1.5231.134–2.0450.0051.6271.075–2.4620.021
Previous cardiac surgery2.9591.727–5.071< 0.0013.5861.693–7.595< 0.001
Diabetes3.0431.413–6.5530.0043.7271.394–9.9670.009
Hypertension2.5281.288–4.9620.0073.7371.287–10.8540.015
Smoking0.7210.472–1.1010.1300.8680.511–1.4740.600
Renal disease1.7851.267–2.514< 0.0011.8811.176–3.0090.008
COPD1.4640.658–3.2530.3501.1220.324–3.8790.856
Neurological disease1.1550.747–1.7870.5160.9430.420–2.1170.887
PAD2.3951.221–4.6990.0112.1260.825–5.4820.119
Preoperative AF0.8670.332–2.2670.7721.5470.512–4.6770.439
Extent of CAD1.4871.087–2.0340.0131.6251.052–2.5120.029
LMS involvement5.2601.226–22.5600.0252.4120.274–21.2800.428
LVEF1.5981.057–2.4150.0261.6380.918–2.9240.095
AS0.5550.288–1.0700.0790.5820.234–1.4490.245
AR4.1192.209–7.682< 0.0015.0862.279–11.349< 0.001
Cardiogenic shock6.0122.780–13.002< 0.0016.4622.277–18.339< 0.001
Preoperative inotropes9.7024.644–20.268 < 0.0015.1921.727–15.6070.003
Preoperative intubation5.3712.158–13.372< 0.0015.4861.349–22.3040.017
Operative urgency2.0381.526–2.722< 0.0012.1401.465–3.126< 0.001
CPB time1.0111.008–1.1014< 0.0011.0141.009–1.018< 0.001
ACX time1.0021.000–1.0050.0571.0010.999–1.0030.217
Circulatory arrest time1.0221.007–1.0370.0031.0231.006–1.0400.006
Etiology-dissection2.2421.205–4.1700.0112.9651.333–6.5960.008
Etiology-aneurysm0.4910.283–0.8510.0110.4000.191–0.8360.015
Etiology-native valve IE1.5390.619–3.8230.3532.2070.715–6.8120.169
Etiology-prosthetic valve IE1.4970.501–4.4780.4701.4960.181–12.3390.708
Postoperative RRT4.5512.530–8.189< 0.0013.2011.394–7.3530.006
Type of procedure0.8430.493–1.4430.5341.5950.772–3.2950.208

ACX: aortic cross clamp; AF: atrial fibrillation; AR: aortic regurgitation; AS: aortic stenosis; BMI: body mass index; CAD: coronary artery disease; CI: confidence interval; COPD: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; CPB: cardiopulmonary bypass; HF: heart failure; IE: infective endocarditis; LMS: left main stem; LVEF: left ventricular ejection fraction; NYHA: New York Heart Association; OR: odds ratio; PAD: peripheral arterial disease; RRT: renal replacement therapy

In the multivariable analysis (Table 5), several of these factors remained significant independent predictors of in-hospital mortality. In the matched cohort, advanced age (OR 1.085, 95% CI 1.030–1.142, P = 0.002), AR (OR 7.963, 95% CI 2.448–25.902, P < 0.001), operative urgency (OR 2.425, 95% CI 1.090–5.395, P = 0.030), and longer CPB time (OR 1.015, 95% CI 1.009–1.022, P < 0.001) were all significant predictors of mortality.

 Multivariable regression analysis for in-hospital mortality

VariableUnmatchedMatched
OR95% CI lower95% CI upperP valueOR95% CI lower95% CI upperP value
Age1.0491.0161.0830.0041.0851.0301.1420.002
Female gender----2.8720.9648.5570.058
NYHA classification1.3550.9122.0130.1331.0680.6261.8220.809
HF0.8590.5521.3390.5031.1300.6032.1170.703
Previous cardiac surgery2.1930.8895.4110.0882.6040.7009.6890.154
Diabetes1.2830.4263.8640.6581.2140.2725.4060.800
Hypertension2.3730.9745.7780.0573.2810.74314.4810.117
Renal disease0.8150.4841.3720.4410.8400.4091.7240.634
PAD0.6910.2661.7980.4490.2820.0651.2330.093
Extent of CAD1.0720.6741.7060.768----
LMS involvement2.0560.22518.7960.523----
LVEF1.2360.6832.2370.483----
AR4.4031.78510.8610.0017.9632.44825.902< 0.001
Cardiogenic shock1.0770.2245.1690.9265.3460.43865.2710.189
Preoperative inotropes9.0512.42533.7820.0010.7610.0797.2960.813
Preoperative intubation0.5580.0913.4290.5290.4370.0277.0640.560
Operative urgency1.3110.7432.3130.3512.4251.0905.3950.030
CPB time1.0111.0071.015< 0.0011.0151.0091.022< 0.001
Circulatory arrest time0.9940.9671.0210.6590.9970.9901.0050.471
Etiology-dissection1.6900.3977.1990.4780.4920.0912.6520.409
Etiology-aneurysm1.2310.4543.3380.6840.8960.2513.1970.866
Etiology-native valve IE1.3790.3475.4780.648----
Etiology-prosthetic valve IE0.5140.1122.3480.390----
Postoperative RRT2.9881.3546.5910.0070.9530.2903.1370.937

AR: aortic regurgitation; BMI: body mass index; CAD: coronary artery disease; CI: confidence interval; CPB: cardiopulmonary bypass; CVA: cerebrovascular accident; CVG: composite valve graft; HF: heart failure; IE: infective endocarditis; LMS: left main stem; LVEF: left ventricular ejection fraction; NYHA: New York Heart Association; OR: odds ratio; PAD: peripheral arterial disease; RRT: renal replacement therapy

Long-term survival

The Kaplan-Meier survival analysis for the unmatched groups (Figure 1, Table 6) revealed no significant difference in long-term survival between the CVG and SAAR groups. Although the SARR group showed a slight trend toward better survival, these differences were not statistically significant.

Unmatched Kaplan-Meier survival estimates for composite valve graft and stentless aortic root replacement

 Long-term survival rates for unmatched groups of composite valve graft and stentless aortic root replacement

Survival rates1 year5 years10 years15 years17 years20 years
Composite valve graft87% (82.1–90.7)79% (72.6–84.4)73% (65.1–79.9)58% (41.4–71.1)45% (25.5–63.4)45% (25.5–63.4)
Stentless aortic root87% (83.3–90.4)83% (78.1–86.4)75% (69.6–80.3)68% (56.7–76.8)68% (56.7–76.8)51% (20.1–75.3)

In the propensity score-matched cohorts (Figure 2, Table 7), the SARR group demonstrated a statistically significant survival advantage, with a 20-year survival rate of 54% compared to 47% for the CVG group (log-rank P value of 0.047), suggesting a potential benefit for SARR in long-term outcomes when patient characteristics are well-matched.

Propensity score matched Kaplan-Meier survival estimates for composite valve graft and stentless aortic root replacement

 Long-term survival rates for matched groups of composite valve graft and stentless aortic root replacement over time

Survival rates1 year5 years10 years15 years17 years20 years
Composite valve graft87% (81.3–90.8)80% (73.2–85.5)74% (65.4–81.3)65% (48.9–77.4)47% (21.7–68.8)47% (21.7–68.8)
Stentless aortic root91% (86.6–94.4)87% (81.6–91.0)82% (74.9–87.2)71% (56.3–82.2)71% (56.3–82.2)54% (19.9–78.6)

Further analysis by specific graft type within the unmatched groups (Figure 3, Table 8) showed no significant differences in long-term survival across the different graft types, with the log-rank test yielding a P value of 0.069. While xenografts exhibited the highest survival rates, and biological CVGs the lowest, these trends did not reach statistical significance.

Unmatched Kaplan-Meier survival estimates for biological CVG, homograft, mechanical CVG, and xenograft

 Long-term survival rates for different graft types over time in unmatched groups

Survival rates1 year5 years10 years15 years17 years20 years
Biological CVG85% (76.2–90.9)75% (61.2–84.9)75% (61.2–84.9)55% (25.5–77.3)41% (12.6–68.7)-
Homograft83% (73.2–88.9)76% (65.8–83.9)65% (52.9–75.3)62% (48.5–73.0)62% (48.5–73.0)-
Mechanical CVG88% (81.7–92.5)81% (72.7–86.8)73% (62.7–80.9)60% (40.3–75.4)50% (25.9–70.4)50% (25.9–70.4)
Xenograft89% (84.4–92.4)85% (79.9–88.9)79% (71.9–84.2)70% (53.7–80.9)70% (53.7–80.9)70% (53.7–80.9)

CVG: composite valve graft

In the propensity score-matched analysis by graft type (Figure 4, Table 9), xenografts continued to show superior outcomes, with a statistically significant survival advantage (log-rank P value of 0.009). Mechanical CVGs also performed well, although long-term data beyond 10 years were limited.

Matched Kaplan-Meier survival estimates for biological CVG, homograft, mechanical CVG, and xenograft

 Long-term survival rates for different graft types over time in matched groups

Survival rates1 year5 years10 years15 years17 years20 years
Biological CVG84% (74.3–89.8)81% (70.8–87.6)72% (57.8–81.9)---
Homograft92% (79.7–96.9)81% (65.1–90.3)70% (48.1–83.9)---
Mechanical CVG91% (83.6–94.7)89% (81.7–93.8)86% (76.2–91.5)---
Xenograft95% (90.3–97.5)93% (87.5–96.0)90% (82.6–94.3)---

CVG: composite valve graft

The Cox regression analysis identified several key variables associated with long-term mortality (Table 10). In the unmatched analysis, older age, female gender, AR, longer CPB time, and postoperative complications such as deep sternal wound infection (DSWI) and postoperative ischemic bowel disease were significant predictors of increased long-term mortality.

 Cox regression for long-term mortality

VariableUnmatchedMatched
HR95% CI lower95% CI upperP valueHR95% CI lower95% CI upperP value
Age1.0361.0171.056< 0.0011.0521.0251.079< 0.001
Female gender1.9041.2212.9700.0051.6010.8752.9290.127
BMI0.9820.9441.0220.3750.9510.8981.0070.082
NYHA classification0.8240.6571.0330.0940.8480.6271.1450.281
HF1.1480.9011.4620.2641.2330.8411.8090.283
Previous cardiac surgery1.6070.9542.7050.0742.0951.0294.2660.042
Diabetes0.9290.4371.9730.8471.4980.6023.7250.385
Hypertension1.0090.6191.6440.9720.9660.4691.9920.926
Smoking1.0740.7881.4620.6521.3190.8871.9610.172
Renal disease0.8350.6041.1550.2760.8800.5691.3590.564
COPD1.1830.6322.2140.6001.3800.5883.2360.459
History of TIA/CVA0.7510.5281.0690.1120.6620.2072.1120.486
PAD1.4370.8452.4420.1811.1450.5142.5490.741
Preoperative AF1.5250.8172.8470.1851.8070.7744.2210.171
Extent of CAD1.2750.9611.6910.0931.1980.7701.8620.423
LMS involvement0.3480.0931.2970.1160.1910.0231.5810.125
LVEF1.0650.7511.5090.7250.8140.4641.4270.473
AS0.5530.3300.9270.0240.4440.2070.9520.037
AR3.6662.2975.851< 0.0013.9612.1897.166< 0.001
Cardiogenic shock2.1500.8745.2900.0960.8590.2093.5260.833
Preoperative inotropes3.5231.4418.6100.0062.0020.38010.5610.413
Preoperative intubation0.4190.1471.1930.1031.0520.1875.9280.954
Operative urgency1.2980.9511.7720.1011.3250.8652.0280.196
CPB time1.0081.0051.011< 0.0011.0091.0051.013< 0.001
ACX time0.9980.9960.9990.0130.9990.9971.0010.173
Circulatory arrest time0.9990.9851.0130.9040.9980.9791.0170.805
Homograft0.2300.0321.6530.1440.4880.2341.0150.055
Biological CVG0.2930.0392.1760.2300.9390.4372.0150.871
Mechanical CVG0.2630.0361.9220.188----
Etiology-dissection0.8410.3761.8810.6731.0570.3573.1340.920
Etiology-aneurysm0.8040.4641.3960.4390.8510.3671.9710.706
Etiology-native valve IE1.3300.5813.0460.5001.6850.5035.6440.398
Etiology-prosthetic valve IE0.7460.2662.0890.5770.7270.1324.0190.715
Postoperative low CO0.6810.4421.0510.0830.8250.4601.4780.517
Re-intubation2.5381.0686.0290.0353.1731.0339.7460.044
Tracheostomy0.6140.2211.7020.3480.6230.1592.4340.496
Postoperative CVA2.1040.6327.0020.2251.6080.6004.3150.345
Post-op AF0.7770.4741.2750.3190.8350.4311.6190.594
Post-op CHB0.7800.2952.0610.6160.6910.1044.5700.701
Postoperative sepsis0.9860.7081.3750.9350.4270.0882.0840.293
DSWI3.6871.6058.4710.00221.1311.091409.1110.044
Postoperative RRT0.6370.3031.3370.2330.5130.1881.3970.191
Permanent dialysis1.2460.5133.0250.6270.7690.2122.7920.690
Postoperative ischaemic bowel disease7.1841.89227.2690.00436.9754.654293.770< 0.001
Postoperative MOF8.2793.61918.939< 0.00111.7723.26842.403< 0.001
Postoperative hospital stay0.9660.9500.984< 0.0010.9630.9350.9920.013

ACX: aortic ceoss clamp; AF: atrial fibrillation; AR: aortic regurgitation; AS: aortic stenosis; BMI: body mass index; CAD: coronary artery disease; CHB: complete heart block; CI: confidence interval; CO: cardiac output; COPD: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; CPB: cardiopulmonary bypass; CVA: cerebrovascular accident; CVG: composite valve graft; DSWI: deep sternal wound infection; HF: heart failure; HR: hazard ratio; IE: infective endocarditis; LMS: left main stem; LVEF: left ventricular ejection fraction; MOF: multi otgan failure; NYHA: New York Heart Association; PAD: peripheral arterial disease; RRT: renal replacement therapy; TIA: transient ischaemic attack

In the propensity score-matched cohort, age [hazard ratio (HR) 1.052, 95% CI 1.025–1.079, P < 0.001], AR (HR 3.961, 95% CI 2.189–7.166, P < 0.001), longer CPB time (HR 1.009, 95% CI 1.005–1.013, P < 0.001), and postoperative complications such as DSWI (HR 21.131, 95% CI 1.091–409.111, P = 0.044), postoperative ischemic bowel disease (HR 36.975, 95% CI 4.654–293.770, P < 0.001), and postoperative multi-organ failure (HR 11.772, 95% CI 3.268–42.403, P < 0.001) were significant predictors of mortality. Additionally, previous cardiac surgery (HR 2.095, 95% CI 1.029–4.266, P = 0.042) emerged as a significant factor in the matched cohort.

Discussion

This study provides a comprehensive comparison of long-term outcomes between SARR and CVG in patients undergoing ARR. Through the use of PSM, we sought to minimize selection bias and create comparable groups to better understand the implications of each surgical approach.

Our analysis revealed that in-hospital outcomes, including low cardiac output syndrome, reoperation rates, and the need for postoperative renal replacement therapy, were not significantly different between the SARR and CVG groups, both before and after matching. This finding suggests that, in terms of immediate postoperative outcomes, both techniques are equally effective and safe for patients undergoing ARR. However, a notable and consistent finding was the higher incidence of neurological complications in the CVG group compared to the SARR group, a difference that remained significant even after matching. Neurological events are a serious concern in cardiac surgery, often leading to prolonged hospital stays, increased morbidity, and a higher likelihood of long-term disability. Several plausible explanations can be offered for the increased neurological events observed in CVG patients. One potential factor is the higher likelihood of microembolization associated with composite graft materials, which may contribute to cerebral ischemia and postoperative stroke risk [5]. Additionally, the longer circulatory arrest times in CVG procedures could lead to extended periods of cerebral hypoperfusion, increasing vulnerability to ischemic injury [6]. Another consideration is the heightened inflammatory response triggered by synthetic graft components [7], which may exacerbate endothelial dysfunction and impair cerebrovascular integrity. Further studies are needed to validate these hypotheses and explore potential mitigation strategies to reduce neurological complications in CVG patients.

When examining long-term survival, our study found no significant differences in the unmatched cohort; however, the propensity score-matched analysis indicated a statistically significant survival advantage for the SARR group at 20 years. The matched analysis also highlighted that xenografts might offer a long-term survival advantage over mechanical and biological composite grafts. This result is particularly relevant in the context of current debates about the optimal type of prosthesis for patients undergoing ARR. While mechanical valves are often preferred for their durability, they require lifelong anticoagulation, which carries risks of hemorrhage and thromboembolism. Conversely, bioprosthetic valves avoid the need for anticoagulation but are more prone to structural deterioration over time, potentially leading to reoperation. The superior performance of xenografts observed in our study suggests that they may offer a favourable balance between durability and the avoidance of anticoagulation-related complications, making them an attractive option for younger patients or those with a longer life expectancy.

A diverse range of mechanical, bioprosthetic, and human tissue valves is available for clinical use. With the aging population, the number of elderly patients needing AVR has surged in the past decade [8]. The choice of valve type for ARR remains particularly challenging in patients aged between 50 and 70 years. In younger patients, mechanical CVGs are often preferred due to their durability, which contributes to improved long-term survival [9]. A meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data published in 2023 showed that composite aortic valve graft replacement with mechanical prosthesis is associated with better long-term outcomes in comparison with bioprosthetic valves [1]. While this meta-analysis provides broad comparative insights into mechanical versus bioprosthetic CVG, our study expands the scope by incorporating stentless alternatives, granular institutional data, and in-hospital outcomes, offering valuable new perspectives in surgical decision-making for ARR. Of course, the use of mechanical CVG is not without risks, as the potential for thromboembolic events necessitates careful consideration in patient selection and postoperative management [10].

Despite the evidence supporting mechanical valves, there has been an evident trend toward a preference for biological AVRs [11]. A 2024 study published in the Journal of the American Heart Association challenged the historical perception, demonstrating no significant differences in long-term survival between bioprosthetic and mechanical valves in patients undergoing the Bentall procedure, thereby contributing to the ongoing controversy regarding the optimal valve choice [12].

At the other end of the spectrum are stentless aortic grafts, which have been widely researched and utilized across numerous centers, consistently demonstrating excellent clinical outcomes due to their superior hemodynamics [13]. Previous studies have suggested that the use of stentless valves can lead to improved valve durability and function due to their more physiological design, which closely mimics the natural aortic root structure and reduces stress on the valve leaflets [14].

Aortic homografts, although less freely available, were once considered the “gold standard” for AVR during the 1980s and 1990s due to their excellent long-term outcomes [15]. These homografts offered superior hemodynamics and reduced valve-related complications compared to other prostheses [16]. Their flexible tissue properties made them ideal for reconstructing complex aortic root pathologies involving annular destruction [17]. However, homografts became less favoured after a large prospective study, initiated in 1987, highlighted their progressive structural deterioration over time, which led to their more selective use [18]. Additionally, redo procedures for degenerated aortic homografts can prove challenging due to heavy wall calcification [19]. Current guidelines now reserve allografts primarily for cases of active endocarditis with perivalvular lesions [20].

The limited availability of homografts has driven the search for other substitutes with comparable hemodynamic performance and durability. Xenografts demonstrated excellent haemodynamics in multiple studies [2123], and have also exhibited good long-term durability [2427]. In 2021, Melina et al. [13] published a study on late survival and its determinants for patients randomly assigned to receive one of two stentless aortic roots—homografts or xenografts—showing similar survival rates between the two techniques at twenty years, further cementing the argument for the use of xenografts.

As the body of evidence continues to expand, our study suggests that xenografts might have the potential to outperform mechanical CVGs in certain patient populations, particularly when considering long-term survival. Conversely, while existing literature indicates that early clinical outcomes, such as mortality and morbidity rates, are comparable between xenografts and stented aortic bioprostheses similar to this study, xenografts demonstrate distinct advantages in key functional parameters [28]. Notably, they exhibit superior transvalvular gradients, larger effective orifice areas, and greater regression of left ventricular hypertrophy, particularly when employed in a full-root configuration [28]. This coupled with significant survival advantage in the full-root variant positions xenografts as a strong contender in the ongoing debate regarding the optimal valve choice for ARR. These findings support the broader use of xenografts in ARR, especially for patients who may benefit from their physiological design and lower risk of thromboembolic events.

This study has several limitations that need to be acknowledged. Firstly, as a retrospective analysis, it is subject to inherent biases and limitations associated with retrospective data collection, such as selection bias, recall bias, and the inability to control for all potential confounders. Although PSM was used to minimize these biases, unmeasured variables may still have influenced the results. Secondly, a criticism of the study is that it has varied aortic pathology and that focus should be on the dominant pathology with exclusion of less common disorders to minimize bias. On the contrary, we strongly believe that exclusion of cases does not provide a true reflection of real-world experience and acknowledge this aspect as a limitation of the study. Thirdly, the study was conducted at a single institution, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. Different institutions may have variations in surgical techniques, patient selection criteria, and postoperative care, which could affect outcomes. Additionally, the exclusion of valve-sparing techniques from this analysis, despite their known benefits in selected populations, may limit the applicability of the results to broader clinical practice. Fourthly, the study’s follow-up period beyond 20 years was limited, particularly for certain graft types, affecting the robustness of long-term survival estimates. While we observed a survival advantage for xenografts in the matched analysis, longer follow-up and larger sample sizes are needed to confirm these findings and determine whether this advantage persists over an even longer time horizon. Although Kaplan-Meier curves were presented up to 20 years, the number of patients at risk significantly declined after 10 years, particularly within the homograft subgroup. This limitation is evident in Tables 69 and must be taken into account when interpreting long-term survival trends, as late survival differences beyond this point are based on sparse data. Finally, the higher incidence of neurological complications in the CVG group raises important questions that were not fully explored in this study. Future research should focus on identifying the underlying causes of these events and determining whether modifications in surgical technique or patient management can reduce their occurrence.

While our PSM was based on logistic regression for treatment allocation (SARR vs. CVG), this approach does not account for time-to-event bias directly. As a result, potential imbalance in survival-related covariates may persist even after matching. Alternative methods such as PSM based on Cox regression or the use of inverse probability of treatment weighting could potentially provide improved adjustment for survival analyses. However, these approaches may introduce additional complexity, especially in retrospective datasets with heterogeneity in follow-up duration. We recognize this as a methodological limitation and an important consideration for future research.

This study offers valuable insights into the long-term outcomes of SARR and CVG in ARR. Our findings indicate that, while both techniques provide comparable in-hospital outcomes, SARR, particularly xenografts, may offer a significant long-term survival advantage. The superior hemodynamics and durability of xenografts position them as a viable alternative to mechanical CVGs, particularly in patients who may benefit from avoiding anticoagulation-related complications. As the evidence continues to evolve, xenografts could play an increasingly prominent role in ARR, especially for younger patients or those with longer life expectancies. However, further studies are needed to confirm these advantages and refine the decision-making process in ARR to optimize patient outcomes across diverse populations.

Abbreviations

AR: aortic regurgitation

ARR: aortic root replacement

AVR: aortic valve replacement

BMI: body mass index

CABG: coronary artery bypass grafting

CAD: coronary artery disease

CIs: confidence intervals

CPB: cardiopulmonary bypass

CVG: composite valve graft

DSWI: deep sternal wound infection

NYHA: New York Heart Association

ORs: odds ratios

PSM: propensity score matching

SARR: stentless aortic root replacement

Declarations

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the support of Siobhan Daley and Andy Ryan from Department of Quality & Safety, Harefield Hospital. Abstract presented at the EACTS 38th Annual Meeting, Lisbon, Portugal, 9–12 October 2024.

Author contributions

MC: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Writing—original draft. MYS: Investigation. FDR, TB, SKB, and JAG: Writing—review & editing. SGR: Conceptualization, Data curation, Writing—original draft, Writing—review & editing. All authors read and approved the submitted version.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

The study was approved by the Harefield Hospital ethics committee (Q&S 15/02/2024) and complies with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Consent to participate

Informed consent to participate in the study was waived by the Harefield Hospital ethics committee due to the retrospective nature of the study.

Consent to publication

Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) but are available from the senior author on reasonable request (SGR, Email: drrajashahzad@hotmail.com).

Funding

Not applicable.

Copyright

© The Author(s) 2025.

Publisher’s note

Open Exploration maintains a neutral stance on jurisdictional claims in published institutional affiliations and maps. All opinions expressed in this article are the personal views of the author(s) and do not represent the stance of the editorial team or the publisher.

References

Sá MP, Tasoudis P, Jacquemyn X, Van den Eynde J, Caranasos TG, Ikonomidis JS, et al. Long-Term Outcomes of Patients Undergoing Aortic Root Replacement With Mechanical Versus Bioprosthetic Valves: Meta-Analysis of Reconstructed Time-to-Event Data. J Am Heart Assoc. 2023;12:e030629. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
Otto CM, Nishimura RA, Bonow RO, Carabello BA, Erwin JP 3rd, Gentile F, et al. 2020 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2021;143:e72227. Erratum in: Circulation. 2021;143:e229. Erratum in: Circulation. 2023;148:e8. Erratum in: Circulation. 2023;148:e185. Erratum in: Circulation. 2024;150:e267. [PubMed]
Vahanian A, Beyersdorf F, Praz F, Milojevic M, Baldus S, Bauersachs J, et al.; ESC/EACTS Scientific Document Group. 2021 ESC/EACTS Guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease: Developed by the Task Force for the management of valvular heart disease of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). Eur Heart J. 2022;43:561632. Erratum in: Eur Heart J. 2022;43:2022. [DOI] [PubMed]
Melina G, Robertis FD, Gaer JAR, Amrani M, Khaghani A, Yacoub MH. Mid-term pattern of survival, hemodynamic performance and rate of complications after medtronic freestyle versus homograft full aortic root replacement: results from a prospective randomized trial. J Heart Valve Dis. 2004;13:9726. [PubMed]
Nötzold A, Gerriets T, Eggers J, Kupiske G, Seidel G, Kaps M, et al. Circulating microemboli after composite replacement or valve-sparing aortic root surgery. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2002;50:1414. [DOI] [PubMed]
Gottesman RF, McKhann GM, Hogue CW. Neurological complications of cardiac surgery. Semin Neurol. 2008;28:70315. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
Enayati M, Eilenberg M, Grasl C, Riedl P, Kaun C, Messner B, et al. Biocompatibility Assessment of a New Biodegradable Vascular Graft via In Vitro Co-culture Approaches and In Vivo Model. Ann Biomed Eng. 2016;44:331934. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
Arsalan M, Walther T. Durability of prostheses for transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2016;13:3607. [DOI] [PubMed]
Goldstone AB, Chiu P, Baiocchi M, Lingala B, Patrick WL, Fischbein MP, et al. Mechanical or Biologic Prostheses for Aortic-Valve and Mitral-Valve Replacement. N Engl J Med. 2017;377:184757. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
Mookhoek A, Korteland NM, Arabkhani B, Centa ID, Lansac E, Bekkers JA, et al. Bentall Procedure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Ann Thorac Surg. 2016;101:16849. [DOI] [PubMed]
Dunning J, Gao H, Chambers J, Moat N, Murphy G, Pagano D, et al. Aortic valve surgery: marked increases in volume and significant decreases in mechanical valve use—an analysis of 41,227 patients over 5 years from the Society for Cardiothoracic Surgery in Great Britain and Ireland National database. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2011;142:77682.e3. [DOI] [PubMed]
Chen C, Chen C, Chang F, Cheng Y, Wu VC, Lin C, et al. Mechanical Versus Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients Undergoing Bentall Procedure. J Am Heart Assoc. 2024;13:e030328. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
Melina G, Robertis FD, Gaer JA, Angeloni E, El-Hamamsy I, Bahrami T, et al. Long-term survival after xenograft versus homograft aortic root replacement: Results from a prospective randomized trial. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2021;161:5765. [DOI] [PubMed]
Ennker J, Albert A, Ennker IC. Stentless aortic valves. Current aspects. HSR Proc Intensive Care Cardiovasc Anesth. 2012;4:7782. [PubMed] [PMC]
Svensson LG, Pillai ST, Rajeswaran J, Desai MY, Griffin B, Grimm R, et al. Long-term survival, valve durability, and reoperation for 4 aortic root procedures combined with ascending aorta replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2016;151:76474.e4. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
Lund O, Chandrasekaran V, Grocott-Mason R, Elwidaa H, Mazhar R, Khaghani A, et al. Primary aortic valve replacement with allografts over twenty-five years: valve-related and procedure-related determinants of outcome. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1999;117:7791. [DOI] [PubMed]
Arabkhani B, Bekkers JA, Andrinopoulou E, Roos-Hesselink JW, Takkenberg JJM, Bogers AJJC. Allografts in aortic position: Insights from a 27-year, single-center prospective study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2016;152:15729.e3. [DOI] [PubMed]
Bekkers JA, Klieverik LMA, Raap GB, Takkenberg JJM, Bogers AJJC. Re-operations for aortic allograft root failure: experience from a 21-year single-center prospective follow-up study. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2011;40:3542. [DOI] [PubMed]
Peterss S, Fabry TG, Steffen J, Orban M, Buech J, Radner C, et al. Aortic valved homograft degeneration: surgical or transcatheter approach for repeat aortic valve replacement? Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2024;66:ezae280. [DOI] [PubMed]
Baumgartner H, Falk V, Bax JJ, De Bonis M, Hamm C, Holm PJ, et al.; ESC Scientific Document Group. 2017 ESC/EACTS Guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease. Eur Heart J. 2017;38:2739-91. [DOI] [PubMed]
Dumesnil JG, LeBlanc MH, Cartier PC, Métras J, Desaulniers D, Doyle DP, et al. Hemodynamic features of the freestyle aortic bioprosthesis compared with stented bioprosthesis. Ann Thorac Surg. 1998;66:S1303. [DOI] [PubMed]
Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG, Jobin J, Cartier P, Honos G, Durand LG. Hemodynamic and physical performance during maximal exercise in patients with an aortic bioprosthetic valve: Comparison of stentless versus stented bioprostheses. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999;34:160917. [DOI] [PubMed]
Fries R, Wendler O, Schieffer H, Schäfers HJ. Comparative rest and exercise hemodynamics of 23-mm stentless versus 23-mm stented aortic bioprostheses. Ann Thorac Surg. 2000;69:81722. [DOI] [PubMed]
Bach DS, Kon ND, Dumesnil JG, Sintek CF, Doty DB. Ten-year outcome after aortic valve replacement with the freestyle stentless bioprosthesis. Ann Thorac Surg. 2005;80:4807. [DOI] [PubMed]
Bach DS, Metras J, Doty JR, Yun KL, Dumesnil JG, Kon ND. Freedom from structural valve deterioration among patients aged < or = 60 years undergoing Freestyle stentless aortic valve replacement. J Heart Valve Dis. 2007;16:64956. [PubMed]
Mohammadi S, Tchana-Sato V, Kalavrouziotis D, Voisine P, Doyle D, Baillot R, et al. Long-term clinical and echocardiographic follow-up of the Freestyle stentless aortic bioprosthesis. Circulation. 2012;126:S198204. [DOI] [PubMed]
Bach DS, Kon ND. Long-term clinical outcomes 15 years after aortic valve replacement with the Freestyle stentless aortic bioprosthesis. Ann Thorac Surg. 2014;97:54451. [DOI] [PubMed]
Tavakoli R, Danial P, Oudjana AH, Jamshidi P, Gassmann M, Leprince P, et al. Biological aortic valve replacement: advantages and optimal indications of stentless compared to stented valve substitutes. A review. Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2018;66:24756. [DOI] [PubMed]
Cite this Article
Export Citation
Comanici M, Salmasi MY, De Robertis F, Bahrami T, Bhudia SK, Gaer JA, et al. Comparative analysis of stentless aortic root and composite valve grafts for aortic root replacement: a retrospective single-centre study. Explor Cardiol. 2025;3:101259. https://doi.org/10.37349/ec.2025.101259 https://doi.org/10.37349/ec.2025.101259
Article Metrics

View: 293

Download: 46

Times Cited: 0