Key result
The Ross procedure provided larger indexed effective orifice areas (1.77 vs 1.42 cm2/m2, P<0.001) and lower gradients than aortic homografts at 1 year after aortic valve replacement.
Why the study?
Does the Ross procedure improve hemodynamic performance compared to aortic homografts in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement?
Population
243 patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (132 with Ross procedure, 111 with aortic homograft)
Comparison
Ross procedure (pulmonary autograft) vs Aortic homograft
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
up to 5 years
Authors
Loading...
Associated with superior 1-year hemodynamics; leaves open clinical benefit and pulmonary homograft durability in observational data.
Cohort (n=243)
Does the Ross procedure improve hemodynamic performance compared to aortic homografts in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement?
Absolute Event Rate: 1.77% vs 1.42%
p-value: p=<0.001
The Ross procedure provides slightly better aortic valve hemodynamics than aortic homografts, but is associated with a 20% rate of pulmonary homograft stenosis.
Laforest et al. (2002) conducted a cohort in Aortic valve replacement (n=243). Ross procedure vs. Aortic homograft was evaluated on Indexed effective orifice area (EOA) at 1 year (p=<0.001). The Ross procedure provided larger indexed effective orifice areas (1.77 vs 1.42 cm2/m2, P<0.001) and lower gradients than aortic homografts at 1 year after aortic valve replacement.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: