Key result
Aortic valve replacement with homografts and the Ross procedure resulted in important aortic regurgitation in 8.4% and 10.3% of patients, respectively, with young rheumatic patients at highest risk.
Why the study?
Do homografts and autografts provide effective and durable substitutes for patients undergoing aortic valve replacement?
Population
189 patients, age 8 months to 68 years, undergoing aortic valve replacement with a human biological…
Comparison
Aortic valve replacement with a cryopreserved or… vs Aortic valve replacement with an autograft /…
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
1 to 46 months
Authors
Loading...
Young rheumatic patients warrant caution with Ross procedure; leaves open long-term durability of homografts and autografts in aortic valve replacement.
Cohort (n=189)
Do homografts and autografts provide effective and durable substitutes for patients undergoing aortic valve replacement?
Absolute Event Rate: 8.4% vs 10.3%
Homografts and autografts are excellent substitutes for diseased aortic valves, though the Ross procedure carries a high risk of early progressive aortic regurgitation in young patients with rheumatic heart disease.
Choudhary et al. (1998) conducted a cohort in Aortic valve disease (n=189). Aortic/pulmonary homograft vs. Ross procedure (autograft) was evaluated on Important or moderate to severe aortic regurgitation. Aortic valve replacement with homografts and the Ross procedure resulted in important aortic regurgitation in 8.4% and 10.3% of patients, respectively, with young rheumatic patients at highest risk.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: