The Bentall procedure: Is it the gold standard? A series of 597 consecutive cases

ObjectivesWe compared aortic root reconstructions using conduits with biological valves and mechanical valves.MethodsOf 597 patients (1995–2008), 307 (mean age 71 years [23–89 years]) had biological valves and 290 (mean age 51 years [21–82 years]) had mechanical valves. The subgroup of 242 patients aged 50 to 70 years included 133 with biological and 109 with mechanical valves.ResultsOverall hospital mortality was 3.9% with biological valves (n = 15; elective: 3.7% [n = 10]) versus 2.8% with mechanical valves (n = 8; elective: 1.4% [n = 3]). In patients 50 to 70 years, age greater than 65 years (relative risk: 3.3 [P = .0001]), clot (relative risk: 2.5 [P = .05]), coronary artery disease (relative risk:3.5 [P < .0001]), and degenerative etiology (relative risk: 0.4 [P = .006]) were independent risk factors for long-term survival (after postoperative day 30); there was no difference in long-term survival between biological and mechanical valves (relative risk: 0.9 [P = .74]). The linearized rate for valve/ascending aorta reoperation was 0.86%/pt-y (2 in 2310 pt-y) after mechanical valves and 2.5%/pt-y (4 in 1586 pt-y) after Bentall procedures with the biological valve.ConclusionsThe choice of valve for aortic root reconstruction seems to have no influence on long-term outcome. Emergency operation and the presence of clot/atheroma have a significant impact on short-term outcome. Reoperation for either ascending aorta and/or aortic valve is low.