Format

Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Ann Thorac Surg. 2016 May;101(5):1804-10. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2015.12.076. Epub 2016 Apr 1.

Ross Versus Non-Ross Aortic Valve Replacement in Children: A 22-Year Single Institution Comparison of Outcomes.

Author information

1
Department of Surgery, Section of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana. Electronic address: jobrown@iupui.edu.
2
Department of Surgery, Section of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

The Ross aortic valve replacement (AVR) has been the AVR of choice for children at our center since 1993. Absence or inadequate quality of the pulmonary valve or, less commonly, family or surgeon preference caused us to select an alternative AVR prosthesis for some children. This review compares the outcomes of 42 children who received a non-Ross AVR with 115 children undergoing Ross root replacement at our institution during the most recent 22 years.

METHODS:

A retrospective chart review of the 42 pediatric non-Ross AVRs was compared with 115 Ross AVRs. The mean age at AVR was 11.0 ± 6.5 years (range, 1 month to 18 years) for the non-Ross and 11.4 ± 5.5 years (range, 6 weeks to 18 years) for the Ross groups. Follow-up was 7.8 ± 6.2 years for the Ross group and 8.7 ± 6.5 years for the non-Ross group. The Ross AVR technique was modified in 2000; these modifications were applied to 72 patients (63%) of the total Ross AVR group.

RESULTS:

All-cause early and late mortality of the non-Ross AVR group was 17% compared with 4% for the Ross cohort (p = 0.017). The actuarial survival rate at 20 years for the non-Ross AVR group was 81% compared with 94% for the Ross group (p = 0.018). Reintervention rate was 29% (12/38) in the non-Ross group and 28% (32/115) in the entire Ross group (60% [26/43] before 2000, and 8% [6/72] after 2000). Thromboemboli, bleeding, and endocarditis occurred in 2.4%, 1.4%, and 10% in the non-Ross group compared with 0.9%, 2.6%, and 1.7% in the Ross AVR group (p = 0.46, 0.01, and 0.02), respectively. Patients in the non-Ross group had a significantly higher recurrent or persistent aortic valve gradient (>20 mm Hg) than did patients in the Ross group at most recent follow-up (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS:

Lower mortality, valve-related complications, and better hemodynamics were seen after the Ross AVR than with other types of AVR prostheses. The Ross AVR remains the treatment of choice for children who have an adequate pulmonary valve. Reoperation for Ross root dilatation, regurgitation, or both (only 6% since our modifications in 2000) has markedly reduced the main drawbacks of this AVR technique. The Ross AVR affords the growing child the advantages of a growing, autologous, viable valve substitute and eliminates the lifelong disadvantages of mechanical and xenograft valves.

[Indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Elsevier Science
    Loading ...
    Support Center