No abstract

Objective: To systematically compare clinical outcomes between aortic valve repair and replacement in patients with aortic regurgitation. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was undertaken among the four major databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Ovid) to identify all published data comparing clinical outcomes of aortic valve repair vs replacement. Database searched from inception to November 2018.Results: A total of 1071 patients were analyzed in eight articles. Mean age was similar in both groups of patients (47.2 ± 12.8 vs 48.3 ± 12.7 years, P = 0.83, aortic valve repair and replacement, respectively). The preoperative left ventricular ejection fraction was better in the repair group (56.7% ± 4.8 vs 53.3% ± 4.2, P = 0.005). The rate of moderate-to-severe regurgitation and bicuspid aortic valve were similar in both cohorts (81% vs 78%, P = 0.90% and 58% vs 55%, P = 0.46). In-hospital and 1-year mortality was lower in repair cohort, although not reaching statistical significance (1.3% vs 3.6%, P = 0.12; 5.9% vs 9.3%, P = 0.77). Reoperation rate was higher in repair patients at 1 year (8.8% vs 3.7%, P = 0.03).Conclusion: Aortic valve repair offers comparable perioperative outcomes to aortic valve replacement in aortic regurgitation patients at the expense of higher late reintervention rate. Larger trials with long-term follow-up are required to confirm the long-term benefits of aortic valve repair.

Descending thoracic aortic aneurysm management has gained momentum and became a topic of many debates at international levels since the evolution of endovascular repair. Ruptured descending thoracic aortic aneurysm is a clinical emergency which is associated with high mortality and morbidity rates if not managed properly. Prior to thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR), open repair (OR) was the gold standard management, however since the evolution of TEVAR, this has changed. Several centers have reported many of their experiences and published that TEVAR can provide equal or even better perioperative outcomes when compared to OR, although the evidences can be of only short term and could be biased at different levels at the time of publication. This review article is aimed to examine current literature evidences behind the use of TEVAR vs. OR and the reported comparative clinical outcomes.