The Ross procedure demonstrated a 12.7% higher event-free probability at 10 years compared to mechanical aortic valve replacement in children (p=0.05).
Cohort (n=1,501)
Yes
Does the Ross procedure improve event-free survival compared to mechanical or bioprosthetic AVR in children and young adults?
The Ross procedure offers superior event-free survival and overall survival approaching the general population compared to mechanical or bioprosthetic AVR in children and young adults, though pulmonary homograft reintervention remains a long-term consideration.
Effect estimate: 12.7% higher
p-value: p=0.05
BACKGROUND: There are several options available for aortic valve replacement (AVR), with few comparative reports in the literature. The optimal choice for AVR in each age group is not clear. OBJECTIVES: The study sought to report and compare outcomes after AVR in the young using data from a national database. METHODS: AVR procedures were compared after advanced matching, both in pairs and in a 3-way manner, using a Bayesian dynamic survival model. RESULTS: A total of 1,501 patients who underwent AVR in the United Kingdom between 2000 and 2012 were included. Of these, 47.8% had a Ross procedure, 37.8% a mechanical AVR, 10.9% a bioprosthesis AVR, and 3.5% a homograft AVR, with Ross patients being significantly younger when compared to the other groups. Overall survival at 12 years was 94.6%. In children, the Ross procedure had a 12.7% higher event-free probability (death or any reintervention) at 10 years when compared to mechanical AVR (p = 0.05). We also compared all procedures except the homograft in a matched population of young adults, where the bioprosthesis had the lowest event-free probability of 78.8%, followed by comparable results in mechanical AVR and Ross, with 86.3% and 89.6%, respectively. Younger age was associated with mortality and pulmonary reintervention in the Ross group and with aortic reintervention in the mechanical AVR. Of all 3 options, only the patients undergoing the Ross procedure approached the survival of the general population. CONCLUSIONS: AVR in the young achieves good results, with the Ross being overall better suited for this age group, especially in children. Although freedom from aortic valve reintervention is superior after the Ross procedure, the need for homograft reinterventions is an issue to take into account. All methods have advantages and limitations, with reinterventions being an issue in the long term for all, more crucially in smaller children.
Sharabiani et al. (Wed,) conducted a cohort in Aortic valve disease requiring replacement (n=1,501). Ross procedure vs. Mechanical, bioprosthesis, and homograft aortic valve replacement was evaluated on Event-free probability (death or any reintervention) at 10 years in children (12.7% higher, p=0.05). The Ross procedure demonstrated a 12.7% higher event-free probability at 10 years compared to mechanical aortic valve replacement in children (p=0.05).