Literature DB >> 27664427

Is the Ross procedure a riskier operation? Perioperative outcome comparison with mechanical aortic valve replacement in a propensity-matched cohort.

Ismail Bouhout1, Pierre-Emmanuel Noly1, Aly Ghoneim1, Louis-Mathieu Stevens2, Raymond Cartier1, Nancy Poirier1, Denis Bouchard1, Philippe Demers1, Ismail El-Hamamsy3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare perioperative outcomes in young adults following isolated Ross procedure versus mechanical aortic valve replacement (AVR) in a high-volume centre.
METHODS: From 2007 to 2015, 337 elective isolated mechanical AVRs and 137 Ross procedures were performed in young adults (<65 years) at our centre. Using a 1:1 propensity score match analysis, 140 patients were included in the study (n = 70 in each group). Perioperative outcomes were defined using STS guidelines. The primary outcome was operative mortality.
RESULTS: Median age was 52 [14] years and EuroSCORE II was 1.0 [0.4]%. There were no mortalities in the two groups. There were no differences in the incidence of myocardial injury (0% overall) and neurological complications (0.7% overall). Three (4%) reinterventions for bleeding were required in the Ross cohort versus six (9%) in the mechanical AVR cohort (P = 0.49). A significant increase in serum creatinine (>2-fold increase) was more commonly observed after the Ross procedure (11 vs 1%; P = 0.03), but there was no significant difference in the rate of temporary dialysis. Twenty-seven patients (39%) required ≥1 blood product transfusion in the Ross group, whereas 21 patients (31%) did so in the mechanical AVR group (P = 0.47). Median hospital length of stay was similar in both the groups (6 days).
CONCLUSIONS: There are no differences in mortality or major perioperative outcomes in adults undergoing an isolated Ross procedure or mechanical AVR.
© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Aortic valve replacement; Mechanical aortic prosthesis; Propensity score; Ross procedure

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27664427     DOI: 10.1093/icvts/ivw325

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg        ISSN: 1569-9285


  6 in total

1.  Aortic valve replacement in young and middle-aged adults: looking beyond the tree that hides the forest.

Authors:  Amine Mazine; Maral Ouzounian
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2017-02

2.  The Ross procedure: an excellent option in the right hands.

Authors:  Michael E Bowdish; S Ram Kumar; Vaughn A Starnes
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2016-12

3.  Ross Procedure vs Mechanical Aortic Valve Replacement in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Amine Mazine; Rodolfo V Rocha; Ismail El-Hamamsy; Maral Ouzounian; Bobby Yanagawa; Deepak L Bhatt; Subodh Verma; Jan O Friedrich
Journal:  JAMA Cardiol       Date:  2018-10-01       Impact factor: 14.676

4.  The Ross procedure: time for a hard look at current practices and a reexamination of the guidelines.

Authors:  Ismail El-Hamamsy; Ismail Bouhout
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2017-03

5.  Surgery for Young Adults With Aortic Valve Disease not Amenable to Repair.

Authors:  Mustafa Zakkar; Vito Domanico Bruno; Alexandru Ciprian Visan; Stephanie Curtis; Gianni Angelini; Emmanuel Lansac; Serban Stoica
Journal:  Front Surg       Date:  2018-03-02

6.  Tailoring the Ross procedure for patients with aortic regurgitation.

Authors:  Amine Mazine; Ismail El-Hamamsy
Journal:  JTCVS Tech       Date:  2021-06-08
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.