Key result
The pulmonary autograft procedure (Ross) was associated with significantly fewer circulating microemboli compared to mechanical valve prostheses (25% vs 100%; P<.05).
Why the study?
Does the pulmonary autograft procedure (Ross) reduce circulating microemboli compared to mechanical valve prostheses in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement?
Observational (n=29)
Single-blind
Does the pulmonary autograft procedure (Ross) reduce circulating microemboli compared to mechanical valve prostheses in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement?
Absolute Event Rate: 25% vs 100%
p-value: p=<.05
The Ross procedure is associated with significantly fewer circulating microemboli compared to mechanical aortic valve replacement, supporting its safety profile regarding microembolic events.
May support Ross preference to limit microemboli in aortic replacement; leaves open clinical outcome benefits pending randomized trials.
BACKGROUND: The pulmonary autograft procedure (Ross) is now considered the gold standard for aortic valve replacement. One of its advantages is the freedom from macroemboli without anticoagulation. Whether this holds true for circulating microemboli, detectable as high-intensity transient Doppler signals (HITS), has not yet been verified. METHODS AND RESULTS: We investigated 8 patients (2 women, 6 men; mean age, 50.6+/-17.9 years) after the Ross procedure, 9 patients (3 women, 6 men; mean age, 67.2+/-9.46 years) after aortic valve replacement with a mechanical valve prosthesis, and 12 young healthy volunteers by unilateral 1-hour recording of the middle cerebral artery on digital audio tape. Patients with extracranial carotid artery disease were excluded by color duplex sonography. During the off-line evaluation, the investigator was not aware of any patient details. No HITS were detected in healthy volunteers (95% confidence interval [CI], 0% to 26.46%). After the Ross procedure, 1 patient had 11 and 1 patient had 1 HITS (95% CI, 3.19% to 65.09%). All recipients of mechanical valves had HITS, ranging from 2 to 84 per hour (95% CI, 66.7% to 100%). Significantly more recipients of mechanical valves exhibited HITS than recipients of pulmonary autografts (P<.05) or control subjects (P<.05). CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to mechanical valves, pulmonary autografts are seldom the source of microemboli, confirming the pulmonary autograft as the superior substitute for aortic valve replacement.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nötzold et al. (1997) conducted an observational in Aortic valve replacement (n=29). Pulmonary autograft procedure (Ross) vs. Mechanical valve prosthesis was evaluated on Presence of circulating microemboli (high-intensity transient Doppler signals [HITS]) (p=<.05). The pulmonary autograft procedure (Ross) was associated with significantly fewer circulating microemboli compared to mechanical valve prostheses (25% vs 100%; P<.05).
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: