Comparison of outcomes following valve-sparing aortic root replacement in patients with bicuspid and tricuspid aortic valves: A meta-analysis

Table 2 Patient characteristics of the included studies

Ref.	Sample size (n)		Aortic regurgitation grade I				EF (%)		Marfan syndrome		Dissection		Prolapse correction
	BAV	TAV	Grade I	Grade II	Grade III	Grade IV	BAV	TAV	BAV	TAV	BAV	TAV	BAV	TAV
Aicher et al[25], 2007	81	193	71	64	116	23	–	–	0	5	6	40	70	103
Martín et al[19], 2017	57	103	224	37	3	3	85.40	≥ 55	107	7	–	–	47	56
Karciauskas et al[21], 2019	29	63	5	47	38	2	53.6 ± 7.5	48.7 ± 10.1	–	–	1	6	28	53
Schäfers et al[14], 2015	290	431	56	183	436	21	–	–	–	–	29	59	–	–
Kvitting et al[17], 2013	63	170	89	64	52	28	62	61	3	91	0	0	42	63
Bavaria et al[18], 2015	40	89	19	38	20	28	58 ± 9	56 ± 10	0	47	–	–	40	13
Shrestha et al[20], 2018	24	173	21	29	50	97	–	–	60	–	–	–	11	14
Ouzounian et al[22], 2019	45	135	–	–	–	–	75	≥ 60	4	71	–	–	42	59
Malvindi et al[16], 2012	24	108	–	–	–	–	88	> 45	5	1	–	–	10	3
Miyahara et al[15], 2020	414	589	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Mokashi et al[13], 2022	71	71	58	33	29	22	57 ± 5.4	57 ± 5.6	–	–	0	1	–	–
François et al[24], 2025	65	171	–	–	–	–	–	–	5 (7.6)	64 (36.9)	4 (6.1)	26 (15)	–	–
Levine et al[23], 2023	156	156	–	–	–	–	56.33 ± 4.49	56.67 ± 3.74	–	–	–	–	–	–

BAV: Bicuspid aortic valve; EF: Ejection fraction; TAV: Tricuspid aortic valve.