Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Dec 20:17:121-128.
doi: 10.1016/j.xjtc.2022.11.016. eCollection 2023 Feb.

Outcomes after the Ross procedure with pulmonary autograft reinforcement by reimplantation

Affiliations

Outcomes after the Ross procedure with pulmonary autograft reinforcement by reimplantation

Lisa Guirgis et al. JTCVS Tech. .

Abstract

Background: Pulmonary autograft reinforcement to prevent dilatation and subsequent neo-aortic valve regurgitation has been reported; however, data on long-term function of the neo-aortic valve after this modified Ross procedure are lacking. Our objective here was to assess long-term outcomes of the modified Ross procedure with autograft reinforcement using the reimplantation technique.

Patients: The outcomes of 61 consecutive patients managed using the Dacron-conduit reinforced Ross procedure between 2009 and 2021 were reviewed. Most patients had a unicuspid or bicuspid aortic valve (n = 52; 85%), predominant aortic valve regurgitation (n = 42; 77%), and >30 mm dilatation of the ascending aorta (n = 33; 54%). A prior aortic valve procedure was noted in 47 patients (77%) patients, including 38 (62%) with surgical repair and 9 (15%) with balloon dilatation. The pulmonary autograft was reimplanted within a Dacron conduit with a median diameter of 25.6 mm (range, 20-30 mm) using the David valve-sparing aortic root replacement technique.

Results: All patients survived. The median age at surgery was 16.8 years (range, 6-38 years). Neo-aortic valve replacement was required in 3 patients (4.9%; 95% CI, 0.34%- 12.7%) because of infective endocarditis, left ventricular false aneurysm, and leaflet perforation, respectively; the repeat procedure was done early in 2 of these patients (2 of 61; 3%). Six patients required right ventricular outflow conduit replacement, 5 by surgery and 1 percutaneously. The median duration of follow-up was 90 months (range, 10-124 months). The 5- and 10-year rates of reintervention-free survival were 84.3% (95% CI, 74%-95%) and 81.6% (95% CI, 72%-93%), respectively, and 5-year survival without aortic reintervention was 94.5% (95% CI, 88%-100%), with little change at 10 years. No patients experienced deterioration of initial neo-aortic valve function (ie, regurgitation or stenosis).

Conclusions: Autograft reinforcement using the reimplantation technique allowed expansion of Ross procedure indications to all patients requiring aortic valve replacement and prevented neo-aortic root dilatation. Failures were uncommon. Long-term follow-up data showed stable neo-aortic valve function.

Keywords: CT, computed tomography; Ross procedure; aortic valve repair; congenital heart disease.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

None
Graphical abstract
None
Neo-aortic valve function was stable after the reinforced Ross procedure using reimplantation.
Figure 1
Figure 1
A, Anastomosis of the reinforced autograft to the aortic annulus. B, Reimplantation of the autograft inside the conduit.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Final view of a reinforced pulmonary autograft in the left outflow position. Arrows indicate neo-aortic commissures. RCA, Right coronary artery button; LCA, left coronary artery button.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Survival curves for free of overall reoperation (A) and free of neoaortic valve reoperation (B). CI, Confidence interval.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Postoperative (6 months) computed tomography scan of the neo-aortic root of an early patient operated on with a conventional reinforcement (before a switch to reimplantation) technique. The autograft wall appears to bulge through the coronary artery reimplantation holes.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Graphical abstract summarizing the content of our study in a single image. RVOT, Right ventricular outflow tract.
None

Similar articles

References

    1. Buratto E., Shi W.Y., Wynne R., Poh C.L., Larobina M., O'Keefe M., et al. Improved survival after the Ross procedure compared with mechanical aortic valve replacement. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;71:1337–1344. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.01.048. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bouhout I., Ghoneim A., Tousch M., Stevens L.M., Semplonius T., Tarabzoni M., et al. Impact of a tailored surgical approach on autograft root dimensions in patients undergoing the Ross procedure for aortic regurgitation. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2019;56:959–967. doi: 10.1093/ejcts/ezz105. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ross D.N. Replacement of aortic and mitral valves with a pulmonary autograft. Lancet. 1967;2:956–958. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(67)90794-5. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Laudito A., Brook M.M., Suleman S., Bleiweis M.S., Thompson L.D., Hanley F.L., et al. The Ross procedure in children and young adults: a word of caution. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2001;122:147–153. doi: 10.1067/mtc.2001.113752. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kouchoukos N.T., Dávila-Román V.G., Spray T.L., Murphy S.F., Perrillo J.B. Replacement of the aortic root with a pulmonary autograft in children and young adults with aortic-valve disease. N Engl J Med. 1994;330:1–6. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199401063300101. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources