RESUMEN
Controversy still surrounds the optimal biological valve substitute for aortic valve replacement. In light of the current literature, we review advantages and optimal indications of stentless compared to stented aortic bio-prostheses. Recent meta-analyses, prospective randomized controlled trials and retrospective studies comparing the most frequently used stentless and stented aortic bio-prostheses were analyzed. In the present review, the types and implantation techniques of the bio-prosthesis that are seldom taken into account by most studies and reviews were integrated in the interpretation of the relevant reports. For stentless aortic root bio-prostheses, full-root vs. sub-coronary implantation offered better early transvalvular gradients, effective orifice area and left ventricular mass regression as well as late freedom from structural valve deterioration in retrospective studies. Early mortality and morbidity did not differ between the stentless and stented aortic bio-prostheses. Early transvalvular gradients, effective orifice area and regression of left ventricular hypertrophy were significantly better for stentless, especially as full-root, compared to stented bio-prostheses. The long-term valve-related survival for stentless aortic root and Toronto SPV bio-prosthesis was as good as that for stented pericardial aortic bio-prostheses. For full-root configuration this survival advantage was statistically significant. There seems to be not one but different ideal biological valve substitutes for different subgroups of patients. In patients with small aortic root or exposed to prosthesis-patient mismatch full-root implantation of stentless bio-prostheses may better meet functional needs of individual patients. Longer follow-ups on newer generation of stented bio-prostheses are needed for comparison of their hemodynamic performance with stentless counterparts especially in full-root configuration.