open access

Journal of Cardiology and Heart Failure

ISSN: 3139-6429 (Online)
DOI Prefix (Crossref): 10.67238

Stented Versus Stentless Bioprostheses in Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement:A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Research Article - Volume: 2, Issue: 1, 2026 (June)

Noor Abu Hantash1, Ahmed Moawad2, Sara Fakeh3*, Yaqoub Y Kilani1, Diala Natheir1, Malak AlKhateeb1, Rami Riad4, Julia Myshku5, Moaath Alsmady6

1School of Medicine, University of Jordan, Jordan
2School of Medicine, Helwan University, Cairo, Egypt
3School of Medicine, Hashemite University, Jordan
4Shmaisani Hospital, Amman, Jordan
5Heart and Lung Surgery Department, University Hospital Augsburg, Germany
6Cardiothoracic surgery Department, Jordan University Hospital, Jordan

*Correspondence to: Sara Fakeh, School of Medicine, Hashemite University, Jordan, E-mail:

Received: June 09, 2026; Manuscript No: JCHF-26-3402; Editor Assigned: June 11, 2026; PreQc No: JCHF-26-3402 (PQ); Reviewed: June 15, 2026; Revised: June 17, 2026; Manuscript No: JCHF-26-3402 (R); Published: June 30, 2026, DOI: 10.67238/jchf.2026.v2.10

ABSTRACT

Background

The clinical advantages of stentless compared with conventional stented bioprosthetic valves in surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) remain uncertain, particularly in the context of evolving lifetime valve management strategies and the increasing role of transcatheter interventions.

Objectives

To compare early clinical outcomes and hemodynamic performance between stented and stentless bioprosthetic valves used in SAVR.

Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines and registered in PROSPERO. PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Scopus were searched from database inception through September 2025. Randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing stented and stentless bioprostheses in SAVR were included. Outcomes of interest included early clinical outcomes (in-hospital or within 30 days), together with intermediate and late hemodynamic outcomes when available. Random-effects models were used to pool effect estimates.

Results

A total of 56 studies comprising 17,260 patients were included. Early mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, endocarditis, reoperation, and hospital length of stay were comparable between the two valve types. Stentless valves were associated with improved hemodynamic performance, demonstrated by larger effective orifice areas (mean difference [MD] 0.38 cm², 95% CI 0.28–0.48) and lower mean transvalvular gradients (MD −0.68 mmHg, 95% CI −1.05 to −0.31). Left ventricular mass regression was similar between groups. Moderate to high heterogeneity was observed across hemodynamic outcomes.

Conclusion

Stentless bioprosthetic valves demonstrate superior hemodynamic performance compared with stented valves but do not appear to improve early clinical outcomes. Given the predominance of observational evidence and the growing importance of lifetime valve management strategies, including valve-in-valve feasibility, prosthesis selection should be individualized.

Keywords: Aortic Valve Replacement; Stented Valve; Stentless Valve; Hemodynamics; Mortality; Systematic Review; Meta-Analysis


Citation: Hantash NA, Moawad A, Fakeh S, Kilani YY, Natheir D, AlKhateeb M, et al. (2026). Stented Versus Stentless Bioprostheses in Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement:A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Cardiol. Heart Fail. Vol.2 Iss.1, June (2026), pp:76-88.
Copyright: © 2026 Noor Abu Hantash, Ahmed Moawad, Sara Fakeh, Yaqoub Y Kilani, Diala Natheir, Malak AlKhateeb, Rami Riad, Julia Myshku, Moaath Alsmady. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
×

Contact Emails

cardiology@confmeets.net
support@confmeets.com
finance@confmeets.com
editorial@confmeets.com

Article Processing Timeline

2-5 Days Initial Quality & Plagiarism Check
25-35
Days
Peer Review Feedback
45-60 Days Total article processing time

Why Publish with us?

  • Rigorous Peer Review
  • Rapid Publication
  • Global Open Access
  • Crossref DOI
  • International Editorial Board
  • Global Visibility
  • Plagiarism Screening
  • Dedicated Author Support
  • Special Issues
  • Transparent Publication Process
  • High Publishing Standards
  • Worldwide Research Community
  • Journal Flyer

    Flyer Image