Brazilian Single-Center Experience with Aortic Root Replacement in 448 Patients: What Is the Best Technique?

The objective of this study was to evaluate whether a surgery with the use of valved conduit is capable of leading to better immediate and late results than those obtained by the valve-sparing aortic root reconstruction technique. Between January 2002 and June 2016, 448 patients underwent aortic root reconstruction. These were divided into three groups according to the technique used: 319 (71.2%) patients received mechanical valved conduits, 49 (10.9%) received biological valved conduits, and 80 (17.9%) underwent the valve-sparing aortic root reconstruction technique. The results were examined by univariate and multivariate analyses of Cox proportional hazards models with multiple logistic regression. The hospital mortality rate was 7.5%. The mortality rates were 8.2%, 12%, and 2.5% in the mechanical valved conduit, biological valved conduit, and aortic valve-sparing groups, respectively, with no significant difference between groups (P=0.1). Thromboembolic complications and reoperationfree survival were also similar (P=0.169 and P=0.688). However, valve-sparing aortic root replacement was superior in terms of long-term survival (P