Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 21, 2026
Full-root Aortic Valve Replacement by Stentless Aortic Xenografts in Patients with Small Aortic Roots
Published on: May 21, 2017
A systematic review and meta-analysis of mechanical vs biological composite aortic root replacement, early and 1-year
Mohamad Bashir1, Amer Harky2, Saied Froghi3
1Department of Cardiac Surgery, Barts Heart Centre, St. Bartholomew's Hospital, London, EC1A 7BE, UK. Mohamad.bashir@bartshealth.nhs.uk.
Objective:
Composite aortic root replacement is a standard procedure for various aortic root pathologies. This systematic review was set to identify the postoperative outcomes for composite mechanical root replacement (mCRR) compared to composite biological root replacement (bCRR).
Methods:
We systematically reviewed four major databases for all papers assessing outcomes in composite root replacement. Articles selected were chosen by two reviewers. Amongst our inclusion and exclusion criteria, all pediatric populations were excluded as were studies with a cohort less than 50 patients.
Results:
We identified seven studies that conformed to our inclusion criteria and incorporated 2240 patients. In-hospital mortality was higher but non-significant in the mechanical group (6.1 vs 4.2% respectively). There was no significant difference demonstrated in the risk of in-hospital stroke, late stroke and re-operation in either groups. Additionally, there was no significant difference in: endocarditis, 1-year mortality, 5-year mortality, mean cardiopulmonary or aortic cross-clamp time.
Conclusions:
Composite mechanical root offers no superiority to composite biological root. There is a significant increase in the perioperative bleeding amongst composite mechanical root cohort. There is a need for further randomized control trail to assess the efficacy of either methods.
