Comparison of clinical results between percutaneous closure and surgical repair of ruptured sinus of Valsalva aneurysm

Abstract Objectives This study was conducted to investigate whether percutaneous closure of ruptured sinus of Valsalva aneurysm (SVA) is as safe and effective as surgery repair. Background Percutaneous closure of ruptured SVA has been becoming an alternative to the traditional surgical repair recently. The reports regarding direct comparison of these two treatment options are scarce. Methods The medical records from the institutional database were retrospectively analyzed. A total of 134 patients were reviewed, including 26 patients undergoing percutaneous closure and 108 patients being treated surgically. To reduce the potential bias, 32 patients from Surgical Repair group were selected by propensity score matching. Results All the ruptured SVAs were successfully closed in each group. No severe procedure‐related complications were found in the perioperative period. After matching, there were no significant differences in the baseline clinical characteristics. The median postoperative hospital stays of Matched group were significantly longer than that of Percutaneous Closure group (7 days vs. 1 day, p < .001). Aortic regurgitation, residual shunt and recurrence of SVAs were common complications in both Percutaneous Closure group and Surgical Repair group. Conclusions The appropriately selected patients with ruptured SVA could be treated by percutaneous closure with an acceptable risk of short‐term complications. Though surgical repair remains the main treatment option for ruptured SVAs, percutaneous closure could be considered in patients with a small‐size rupture and no associated cardiac abnormalities.