Improved Outcomes Following the Ross Procedure Compared With Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement.

BACKGROUND

The ideal aortic valve substitute for young and middle-aged adults remains elusive.

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to compare the long-term outcomes of patients undergoing the Ross procedure and those receiving bioprosthetic aortic valve replacements (AVRs).

METHODS

Consecutive patients aged 16-60 years who underwent a Ross procedure or surgical bioprosthetic AVR at the Toronto General Hospital between 1990 and 2014 were identified. Propensity score matching was used to account for differences in baseline characteristics. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included valve reintervention, valve deterioration, endocarditis, thromboembolic events, and permanent pacemaker implantation.

RESULTS

Propensity score matching yielded 108 pairs of patients. The median age was 41 years (IQR: 34-47 years). Baseline characteristics were similar between the matched groups. There was no operative mortality in either group. Mean follow-up was 14.5 ± 7.2 years. All-cause mortality was lower following the Ross procedure (HR: 0.35; 95% CI: 0.14-0.90; P = 0.028). Using death as a competing risk, the Ross procedure was associated with lower rates of reintervention (HR: 0.21; 95% CI: 0.10-0.41; P < 0.001), valve deterioration (HR: 0.25; 95% CI: 0.14-0.45; P < 0.001), thromboembolic events (HR: 0.15; 95% CI: 0.05-0.50; P = 0.002), and permanent pacemaker implantation (HR: 0.22; 95% CI: 0.07-0.64; P = 0.006).

CONCLUSIONS

In this propensity-matched study, the Ross procedure was associated with better long-term survival and freedom from adverse valve-related events compared with bioprosthetic AVR. In specialized centers with sufficient expertise, the Ross procedure should be considered the primary option for young and middle-aged adults undergoing AVR.