Amine Mazine1, Rodolfo V Rocha1, Ismail El-Hamamsy2, Maral Ouzounian3, Bobby Yanagawa4, Deepak L Bhatt5, Subodh Verma4, Jan O Friedrich6. 1. Division of Cardiac Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 2. Department of Cardiac Surgery, Montreal Heart Institute, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. 3. Department of Cardiac Surgery, Toronto General Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 4. Department of Cardiac Surgery, St Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 5. Brigham and Women's Hospital Heart & Vascular Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 6. Department of Critical Care Medicine, St Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
Importance: The ideal aortic valve substitute in young and middle-aged adults remains unknown. Objective: To compare long-term outcomes between the Ross procedure and mechanical aortic valve replacement in adults. Data Sources: The Ovid versions of MEDLINE and EMBASE classic (January 1, 1967, to April 26, 2018; search performed on April 27, 2018) were screened for relevant studies using the following text word search in the title or abstract: ("Ross" OR "autograft") AND ("aortic" OR "mechanical"). Study Selection: All randomized clinical trials and observational studies comparing the Ross procedure to the use of mechanical prostheses in adults undergoing aortic valve replacement were included. Studies were included if they reported any of the prespecified primary or secondary outcomes. Studies were excluded if no clinical outcomes were reported or if data were published only as an abstract. Citations were screened in duplicate by 2 of the authors, and disagreements regarding inclusion were reconciled via consensus. Data Extraction and Synthesis: This meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines. Data were independently abstracted by 3 reviewers and pooled using a random-effects model. Main Outcomes and Measures: The prespecified primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Results: The search identified 2919 reports, of which 18 studies (3516 patients) met inclusion criteria, including 1 randomized clinical trial and 17 observational studies, with a median average follow-up of 5.8 (interquartile range, 3.4-9.2) years. Analysis of the primary outcome showed a 46% lower all-cause mortality in patients undergoing the Ross procedure compared with mechanical aortic valve replacement (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.54; 95% CI, 0.35-0.82; P = .004; I2 = 28%). The Ross procedure was also associated with lower rates of stroke (IRR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.09-0.80; P = .02; I2 = 8%) and major bleeding (IRR, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.07-0.40; P < .001; I2 = 0%) but higher rates of reintervention (IRR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.16-2.65; P = .007; I2 = 0%). Conclusions and Relevance: Data from primarily observational studies suggest that the Ross procedure is associated with lower all-cause mortality compared with mechanical aortic valve replacement. These findings highlight the need for a large, prospective randomized clinical trial comparing long-term outcomes between these 2 interventions.
Importance: The ideal aortic valve substitute in young and middle-aged adults remains unknown. Objective: To compare long-term outcomes between the Ross procedure and mechanical aortic valve replacement in adults. Data Sources: The Ovid versions of MEDLINE and EMBASE classic (January 1, 1967, to April 26, 2018; search performed on April 27, 2018) were screened for relevant studies using the following text word search in the title or abstract: ("Ross" OR "autograft") AND ("aortic" OR "mechanical"). Study Selection: All randomized clinical trials and observational studies comparing the Ross procedure to the use of mechanical prostheses in adults undergoing aortic valve replacement were included. Studies were included if they reported any of the prespecified primary or secondary outcomes. Studies were excluded if no clinical outcomes were reported or if data were published only as an abstract. Citations were screened in duplicate by 2 of the authors, and disagreements regarding inclusion were reconciled via consensus. Data Extraction and Synthesis: This meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines. Data were independently abstracted by 3 reviewers and pooled using a random-effects model. Main Outcomes and Measures: The prespecified primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Results: The search identified 2919 reports, of which 18 studies (3516 patients) met inclusion criteria, including 1 randomized clinical trial and 17 observational studies, with a median average follow-up of 5.8 (interquartile range, 3.4-9.2) years. Analysis of the primary outcome showed a 46% lower all-cause mortality in patients undergoing the Ross procedure compared with mechanical aortic valve replacement (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.54; 95% CI, 0.35-0.82; P = .004; I2 = 28%). The Ross procedure was also associated with lower rates of stroke (IRR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.09-0.80; P = .02; I2 = 8%) and major bleeding (IRR, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.07-0.40; P < .001; I2 = 0%) but higher rates of reintervention (IRR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.16-2.65; P = .007; I2 = 0%). Conclusions and Relevance: Data from primarily observational studies suggest that the Ross procedure is associated with lower all-cause mortality compared with mechanical aortic valve replacement. These findings highlight the need for a large, prospective randomized clinical trial comparing long-term outcomes between these 2 interventions.
Authors: William M Wilson; Lee N Benson; Mark D Osten; Ashish Shah; Eric M Horlick Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2015-12-21 Impact factor: 11.195
Authors: Denis A Berdajs; Mirza Muradbegovic; Daniel Haselbach; Reto Kofmehl; Johann Steurer; Enrico Ferrari; Ulrike Held; Ludwig K von Segesser Journal: Eur J Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2014-04-24 Impact factor: 4.191
Authors: John Puskas; Marc Gerdisch; Dennis Nichols; Reed Quinn; Charles Anderson; Birger Rhenman; Lilibeth Fermin; Michael McGrath; Bobby Kong; Chad Hughes; Gulshan Sethi; Michael Wait; Tomas Martin; Allen Graeve Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2014-01-12 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Mansour T A Sharabiani; Dan M Dorobantu; Alireza S Mahani; Mark Turner; Andrew J Peter Tometzki; Gianni D Angelini; Andrew J Parry; Massimo Caputo; Serban C Stoica Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2016-06-21 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Maria von Stumm; Tatjana Sequeira-Gross; Johannes Petersen; Shiho Naito; Lisa Müller; Christoph Sinning; Evaldas Girdauskas Journal: Cardiovasc Diagn Ther Date: 2021-04
Authors: Yuanjia Zhu; Mateo Marin-Cuartas; Matthew H Park; Annabel M Imbrie-Moore; Robert J Wilkerson; Sarah Madira; Danielle M Mullis; Y Joseph Woo Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2021-09-16 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Howard Thom; Alexandru Ciprian Visan; Edna Keeney; Dan Mihai Dorobantu; Daniel Fudulu; Mansour T A Sharabiani; Jeff Round; Serban Constantin Stoica Journal: Open Heart Date: 2019-05-22
Authors: Ján Gofus; Mikita Karalko; Petr Fila; Jiří Ondrášek; Hans-Joachim Schäfers; Adrian Kolesár; Emmanuel Lansac; Ismail El-Hamamsy; Laurent de Kerchove; Christian Dinges; Jaroslav Hlubocký; Petr Němec; Martin Tuna; Jan Vojáček Journal: Front Cardiovasc Med Date: 2022-09-08
Authors: Chelsea D Wenos; Jeremy L Herrmann; Lava R Timsina; Parth M Patel; John W Fehrenbacher; John W Brown Journal: J Card Surg Date: 2022-08-21 Impact factor: 1.778