Impact of Aortic Annulus Enlargement on the Outcomes of Aortic Valve Replacement: A Meta-analysis

We sought to evaluate the impact of surgical aortic annulus enlargement (ARE) on the perioperative outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement. Databases were searched for articles published by October 2019 in order to carry out a systematic review followed by meta-analysis. Thirteen studies with 40,447 patients (aortic valve replacement [AVR] with aortic annulus enlargement [AAE]: 4686 patients; AVR without AAE: 35,761 patients) were included. The total rate of AAE was 11.6%, ranging from 4.1%–28.1%. The overall unadjusted odds ratio (OR) (95% confidence interval [CI]) for operative mortality showed a statistically significant difference between the groups, with higher risk in the “AVR with AAE” group (OR 1.388; 95% CI 1.049–1.836, P < 0.001), but not for isolated AVR+AAE (OR 1.341; 95% CI 0.920–1.956, P = 0.127) and also not in matched populations (OR 1.003; 95% CI 0.773–1.300, P = 0.984). The “AVR with AAE” group showed an overall lower risk of significant patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) (OR 0.567; 95% CI 0.376–0.854, P = 0.007) and a higher overall difference in means of indexed effective orifice area (iEOA) (random effect model: 0.058 cm2/m2; 95% CI 0.024–0.092, P < 0.001). The overall ORs for myocardial infarction, stroke, complete heart block/permanent pacemaker implantation and reoperation for bleeding showed no statistically significant difference between the groups. AAE is a useful adjunct to AVR, but the benefit of reduced PPM must be balanced against a possibly higher risk of perioperative mortality. We sought to evaluate the impact of surgical aortic annulus enlargement (ARE) on the perioperative outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement. Databases were searched for articles published by October 2019 in order to carry out a systematic review followed by meta-analysis. Thirteen studies with 40,447 patients (aortic valve replacement [AVR] with aortic annulus enlargement [AAE]: 4686 patients; AVR without AAE: 35,761 patients) were included. The total rate of AAE was 11.6%, ranging from 4.1%–28.1%. The overall unadjusted odds ratio (OR) (95% confidence interval [CI]) for operative mortality showed a statistically significant difference between the groups, with higher risk in the “AVR with AAE” group (OR 1.388; 95% CI 1.049–1.836, P < 0.001), but not for isolated AVR+AAE (OR 1.341; 95% CI 0.920–1.956, P = 0.127) and also not in matched populations (OR 1.003; 95% CI 0.773–1.300, P = 0.984). The “AVR with AAE” group showed an overall lower risk of significant patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) (OR 0.567; 95% CI 0.376–0.854, P = 0.007) and a higher overall difference in means of indexed effective orifice area (iEOA) (random effect model: 0.058 cm2/m2; 95% CI 0.024–0.092, P < 0.001). The overall ORs for myocardial infarction, stroke, complete heart block/permanent pacemaker implantation and reoperation for bleeding showed no statistically significant difference between the groups. AAE is a useful adjunct to AVR, but the benefit of reduced PPM must be balanced against a possibly higher risk of perioperative mortality.