Reimplantation Versus Remodeling: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND: Reimplantation and remodeling procedure are two different techniques for valve-sparing aortic root surgery. A number of comparative series have been published but, to date, there has been no meta-analysis comparing outcomes following the two techniques. METHODS: This meta-analysis was performed in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews. A public domain database (MEDLINE) was searched to identify relevant series. Pooled risk ratios (RR) were calculated using fixed effects models for early (30-day) mortality, late deaths, and reoperation related to moderate or severe aortic insufficiency (AI) during follow-up. RESULTS: The search identified seven eligible series, totaling 672 patients (367 reimplantation patents). There was no significant difference in early (30-day) mortality (pooled RR 1.06; 95% CI 0.36 to 3.10; p = 0.92) and late deaths (pooled RR 0.57; 95% CI 0.18 to 1.87; p = 0.36) between reimplantation and remodeling groups. However, reimplantation technique has less chance for reoperation related to moderate or severe AI during follow-up (pooled RR 0.46; 95% CI 0.23 to 0.92; p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Comparing with remodeling, reimplantation technique has less chance for reoperation related to moderate or severe AI during long-term follow-up.