A systemic review and meta-analysis: Bentall versus David procedure in acute type A aortic dissection.

This systemic review of the literature and meta-analysis examined the current state of the evidence in long-term outcomes for and/or against aortic valve reimplantation (RAV) versus composite valve graft (CVG) intervention in patients with an acute type A dissection. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the baseline characteristics of patients across studies. A random-effects metaregression was performed across study arms with logit-transformed proportions weighted by the study size for each of these outcomes. The results are presented as odds ratios with the RAV procedure as compared to the CVG procedure, including 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and P-values. Further outcomes are summarized with medians, interquartile ranges and the range and number of patients at risk. A total of 27 retrospective studies that included a combined 3058 patients were analysed. In-hospital mortality was in favour of the RAV procedure, which was 2% vs 8% for the CVG procedure. Survival rate at midterm was 98.8% (95% CI 91.7-100%) for RAV and 81.3% (CI 78.5-83.9%) for CVG. Freedom from valve-related reintervention was 100% (CI 93.7-100%) for RAV and 94.6% (CI 86.7-99.1%) for CVG. For an acute type A aortic dissection in the mid-term period, RAV provides a superior outcome over CVG, both in terms of aortic-valve-related reintervention and survival rate.

A systemic review and meta-analysis: long-term results of the Bentall versus the David procedure in patients with Marfan syndrome.

This systemic review of the literature and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the current state of the evidence for and against reimplantation of the aortic valve (RAV) versus the composite valve graft (CVG) intervention in patients with Marfan syndrome. Random effects meta-regression was performed across the study arms with logit-transformed proportions of in-hospital deaths as an outcome measure when possible. Results are presented as odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and P-values. Other outcomes are summarized with medians, interquartile ranges (IQR) and ranges and the numbers of patients at risk. Twenty retrospective studies that included a combined 2156 patients with long-term follow-up were identified for analysis after a literature search. The in-hospital mortality rate favoured the RAV procedure with an odds ratio of 0.23 [95% CI 0.09-0.55, P = 0.001]. The survival rate at mid-term for the RAV cohort was 96.7% (CI 94.2-98.5) vs. 86.4% (CI 82.8-89.6) for the CVG group and 93.1% (CI 66.4-100) for the RAV group vs. 82.6% (CI 74.9-89.2) for the CVG group for the long term. Freedom from valve-related reintervention (median percentages) for the long term was 97.6% (CI 90.3-100%) for the RAV procedure and 88.6% (CI 79.1-95.5) for a CVG. This systematic review of the literature stresses the advantages of the RAV procedure in patients with Marfan syndrome in regard to long- and short-term results as the treatment of choice in aortic root surgery. The RAV procedure reduces in-hospital as well as long-term deaths and protects against aortic valve reintervention.