Evidence Hub

Comparison of outcomes following valve-sparing aortic root replacement in patients with bicuspid and tricuspid aortic valves: A meta-analysis

Lidya Fekadu Adugna, Natnael Fitsum Asfeha, M. Musa, Elsabeth Haile, S. Hailu, Mussie Tsegaye Anjulo, Heran Teferi Tafesse, Z. Khan et al.

World Journal of Meta-Analysis, 2025

2,349 participants

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Aortic root dilation, linked to bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) or tricuspid aortic valve (TAV), risks aneurysm and dissection. Valve-sparing aortic root replacement (VSARR) preserves native valves, avoiding prosthetic valve complications. Long-term VSARR durability, especially in BAV patients, is debated. We hypothesize that VSARR outcomes differ between BAV and TAV patients in short-term and long-term settings.

AIM

To investigate short-term and long-term outcomes of VSARR in BAV vs TAV patients.

METHODS

This Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-compliant meta-analysis included observational studies comparing VSARR in adult BAV vs TAV patients. PubMed, ScienceDirect, and EMBASE were searched from inception to June 2025. Outcomes included mortality, reintervention, and procedural times. Pooled relative risk (RR) and mean differences (MD) with 95%CI were calculated. Risk of bias was assessed using Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions; evidence certainty via GRADE.

RESULTS

Thirteen observational studies involving 1419 BAV and 2349 TAV patients were included. In-hospital mortality (RR = 0.34, 95%CI: 0.10–1.14, P = 0.08) and reoperation (RR = 1.04, 95%CI: 0.64–1.69, P = 0.87) showed no significant differences. All-cause mortality risk was significantly lower in BAV patients (RR = 0.34, 95%CI: 0.13–0.86, P = 0.02). Overall reintervention risk was significantly greater in BAV patients (RR = 2.64, 95%CI: 1.96–3.55, P <…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 2,349 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free