Ross Procedure vs. Prosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement in Adults

Fifteen-year actuarial survival was better with the Ross procedure than either biologic or mechanical valve replacement.

The Ross procedure (RP) utilizes a pulmonary autograft to treat aortic stenosis (with a pulmonary prosthesis) and may be an attractive “living valve” alternative to biologic and mechanical prostheses for younger patients. In this retrospective analysis, investigators compared outcomes between three groups of 434 propensity-matched patients aged 18 to 50 years undergoing RP, biologic aortic valve replacement (AVR), or mechanical AVR, identified from statewide California and New York databases.

Operative mortality was similar and low (<1%) in all groups. At 15 years, actuarial survival was significantly better at 93% with the RP compared with 88% with either biologic or mechanical AVR (hazard ratio for mortality, 0.42 and 0.45, respectively). …

Reviewing Author

Howard C. Herrmann, MD

Disclosures

Consultant/Advisory BoardAffluent Medical; Artedrone; Caranx; Johnson & Johnson; Medtronic; Prolifagen; Wells Fargo

EquityMicrointerventional Devices, Inc.

RoyaltiesUniversity of Pennsylvania

Grant/Research SupportAbbott Vascular; Edwards Lifesciences; Johnson & Johnson; Medtronic

Editorial BoardsCatheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions; Journal of the American College of Cardiology; Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions; JACC Cardiovascular Interventions; JACC Case Reports; JSCAI

Leadership Positions in Professional SocietiesHeart Valve Collaboratory (Scientific Committee Member, Chair of the Publications Committee)