Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 23, 2026

Full-root Aortic Valve Replacement by Stentless Aortic Xenografts in Patients with Small Aortic Roots
Published on: May 21, 2017
Aortic valve repair versus mechanical valve replacement for root aneurysm: the CAVIAAR multicentric study
Emmanuel Lansac1, Isabelle Di Centa2, Pichoy Danial1
1Department of Cardiac Surgery, CHU Pitié Salpetriere, Paris, France.
Insights
Aortic valve repair shows a trend towards better outcomes than replacement, with significantly fewer valve-related deaths and bleeding events. Further long-term studies are needed to confirm these findings for aortic aneurysm patients.
Area of Science:
- Cardiovascular Surgery
- Aortic Valve Disease
- Aneurysm Repair
Background:
- Aortic valve repair is increasingly recognized for improving patient outcomes and quality of life.
- However, aortic valve replacement remains the predominant treatment for aortic valve disease and aortic root aneurysms.
- This study investigates the comparative efficacy of aortic valve repair versus replacement in patients with dystrophic aortic root aneurysm.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the long-term effects of aortic valve repair (REPAIR) versus aortic valve replacement (REPLACE) in patients with dystrophic aortic root aneurysm.
- To compare a composite primary outcome including mortality, reoperation, thromboembolic events, major bleeding, endocarditis, infections, pacemaker implantation, and heart failure.
- To assess secondary outcomes such as major adverse valve-related events and their individual components.
Main Methods:
- The study utilized a multicentric prospective cohort design (CAVIAAR study) with 261 patients.
- 130 patients underwent standardized aortic valve repair (REPAIR) involving root remodeling and annuloplasty.
- 131 patients received mechanical composite valve and graft replacement (REPLACE). Propensity score-weighted Cox model analysis was employed.
Main Results:
- Up to 4 years, the primary composite outcome did not significantly differ between REPAIR and REPLACE groups (HR 0.66 [0.39; 1.12]).
- Aortic valve repair demonstrated significantly lower rates of valve-related deaths (HR 0.09 [0.02; 0.34]) and major bleeding events (HR 0.37 [0.16; 0.85]).
- The REPAIR group experienced half the occurrence of major adverse valve-related events (HR 0.51 [0.31; 0.86]) without an increased risk of reoperation.
Conclusions:
- While the primary outcome showed no significant difference, aortic valve repair exhibited a favorable trend with reduced valve-related mortality and bleeding.
- Aortic valve repair appears to be a safe and effective alternative to replacement in selected patients with aortic root aneurysm.
- Long-term follow-up beyond 4 years is necessary to definitively confirm these findings and the durability of aortic valve repair.
Objectives:
Despite growing evidence that aortic valve repair improves long-term patient outcomes and quality of life, aortic valves are mostly replaced. We evaluate the effect of aortic valve repair versus replacement in patients with dystrophic aortic root aneurysm up to 4 years.
Methods:
The multicentric CAVIAAR (Conservation Aortique Valvulaire dans les Insuffisances Aortiques et les Anévrismes de la Racine aortique) prospective cohort study enrolled 261 patients: 130 underwent standardized aortic valve repair (REPAIR) consisting of remodelling root repair with expansible aortic ring annuloplasty, and 131 received mechanical composite valve and graft replacement (REPLACE). Primary outcome was a composite criterion of mortality, reoperation, thromboembolic or major bleeding events, endocarditis or operating site infections, pacemaker implantation and heart failure, analysed with propensity score-weighted Cox model analysis. Secondary outcomes included major adverse valve-related events and components of primary outcome.
Results:
The mean age was 56.1 years, and valve was bicuspid in 115 patients (44.7%). Up to 4 years, REPAIR did not significantly differ from REPLACE in terms of primary outcome [Hazard Ratio (HR) 0.66 (0.39; 1.12)] but showed significantly less valve-related deaths (HR 0.09 [0.02; 0.34]) and major bleeding events (HR 0.37 [0.16; 0.85]) without an increased risk of valve-related reoperation (HR 2.10 [0.64; 6.96]). When accounting for the occurrence of multiple events in a single patient, the REPAIR group had half the occurrence of major adverse valve-related events (HR 0.51 [0.31; 0.86]).
Conclusions:
Although the primary outcome did not significantly differ between the REPAIR and REPLACE groups, the trend is in favour of REPAIR by a significant reduction of valve-related deaths and major bleeding events. Long-term follow-up beyond 4 years is needed to confirm these findings.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
Mitral Regurgitation III: Medical Management
Mitral Stenosis III: Medical Management
Aortic Regurgitation I: Introduction
Aortic Regurgitation II: Clinical Features and Diagnostic Tests
Aortic Regurgitation III: Medical Management
Aneurysm III: Interprofessional Care

