Improved Outcomes Following the Ross Procedure Compared With Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement

The Ross Procedure: Imaging, Outcomes and Future Directions in Aortic Valve Replacement

The Ross procedure is gaining recognition as a significant option for aortic valve replacement (AVR), and is particularly beneficial in specific patient groups. Although categorized as a class IIb recommendation in the 2020 American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA), and the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) management guidelines on valvular heart disease, recent studies bolster its credibility. Research, including a propensity-matched study, underlines the Ross procedure's association with enhanced long-term survival and reduced adverse valve-related events compared to other AVR types. This positions the Ross procedure as a primary option for AVR in young and middle-aged adults within specialized centers, and potentially the only choice for children and infants requiring AVR. This review meticulously examines the Ross procedure, covering historical perspectives, surgical techniques, imaging, and outcomes, including hemodynamic performance and quality of life, especially focusing on pediatric and young adult patients. It explores contemporary techniques and innovations like minimally invasive approaches and tissue engineering, underscoring ongoing research and future directions. A summarization of comparative studies and meta-analyses reiterates the Ross procedure's superior long-term outcomes, valve durability, and preservation of the left ventricular function, accentuating the crucial role of patient selection and risk stratification, and pinpointing areas for future research.

Long-Term Outcomes of Ross Procedure versus Mechanical Aortic Valve Replacement: Meta-Analysis of Reconstructed Time-To-Event Data

In the era of lifetime management of aortic valve disease, the Ross procedure emerged as an alternative to prosthetic heart valves for young adults; however, more long-term data are warranted. We performed a meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data to compare long-term outcomes between the Ross procedure and mechanical aortic valve replacement (mAVR) in young adults. PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE and GoogleScholar were searched for studies comparing Ross procedure with mAVR that reported mortality/survival rates and/or reoperation rates accompanied by at least one Kaplan-Meier curve for any of the outcomes. Six observational studies (5 with propensity score matching) including 5024 patients (Ross: 1737; mAVR: 3287) met our inclusion criteria. Patients who underwent Ross had a significantly lower risk of mortality in the overall population (HR 0.38, 95%CI 0.30-0.49, P<0.001; median follow-up of 7.2 years) and in the propensity score matched cohorts (HR 0.55, 95%CI 0.42-0.73, P<0.001; median follow-up of 10.2 years); however, the incidence function for the cumulative risk of reoperation was higher for the Ross procedure (HR 1.91, 95%CI 1.36-2.70, P<0.001; median follow-up of 9.3 years). Data from observational studies suggest that the Ross procedure is associated with lower all-cause mortality compared with mAVR; however, there is a higher risk of reoperation. Besides serving as basis to inform patients about benefits and risks involved in this choice, these results call for further randomized clinical trials to determine whether the Ross procedure can achieve its potential benefits in young patients in need of AVR.

Asymptomatic Severe and Moderate Aortic Stenosis: Time for Appraisal of Treatment Indications

Over the last decades, we have witnessed considerable improvements in diagnostics and risk stratification of patients with significant aortic stenosis (AS), paralleled by advances in operative and anesthetic techniques. In addition, accumulating evidence points to the potential benefit of early valve replacement in such patients prior to the onset of symptoms. In parallel, interventional randomized trials have proven the benefit of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in comparison to a surgical approach to valve replacement over a broad risk spectrum in symptomatic patients with AS. This article reviews contemporary management approaches and scrutinizes open questions regarding timing and mode of intervention in asymptomatic patients with severe AS. We also discuss the challenges surrounding the management of symptomatic patients with moderate AS as well as emerging dilemmas related to the concept of a life-long treatment strategy for patients with AS.

Cardiac Surgery 2022 Reviewed

PubMed displayed almost 37,000 hits for the search term "cardiac surgery AND 2022." As before, we used the PRISMA approach and selected relevant publications for a results-oriented summary. We focused on coronary and conventional valve surgery, their overlap with interventional alternatives, and briefly assessed surgery for aorta or terminal heart failure. In the field of coronary artery disease (CAD), key manuscripts addressed prognostic implications of invasive treatment options, classically compared modern interventions (percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI]) with surgery (coronary artery bypass grafting [CABG]), and addressed technical aspects of CABG. The general direction in 2022 confirms the superiority of CABG over PCI in patients with anatomically complex chronic CAD and supports an infarct-preventative effect as underlying mechanism. In addition, the relevance of proper surgical technique to achieve durable graft patency and the need for optimal medical treatment in CABG patients was impressively illustrated. In structural heart disease, the comparisons of interventional and surgical techniques have been characterized by prognostic and mechanistic investigations underscoring the need for durable treatment effects and reductions of valve-related complications. Early surgery for most valve pathologies appears to provide significant survival advantages, and two publications on the Ross operation prototypically illustrate an inverse association between long-term survival and valve-related complications. For surgical treatment of heart failure, the first xenotransplantation was certainly dominant, and in the aortic surgery field, innovations in arch surgery prevailed. This article summarizes publications perceived as important by us. It cannot be complete nor free of individual interpretation, but provides up-to-date information for decision-making and patient information.

Ross procedure versus pulmonary homograft versus mechanical valve versus bioprosthetic valve versus Ozaki procedure for surgical aortic valve replacement: a frequentist network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There has been a resurgence in interest regarding the Ross procedure due to recent publications detailing positive long-term outcomes. Conversely, surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) with a pulmonary homograft (PH), mechanical (MV), bioprosthetic (BV), or the Ozaki procedure each has its own technical advantages and disadvantages. Therefore, we performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) comparing other alternatives to Ross procedure.

METHODS

Medical databases were comprehensively searched for studies comparing the Ross procedure with AVR using a PH, MV, BV, or the Ozaki procedure. Outcomes were pooled as risk ratios (RR) with their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI).

RESULTS

A total of 7816 patients were pooled for our NMA from 24 studies. Compared to Ross procedure, both BV and MV were associated with significantly higher rates of 30-day mortality of RR (2.37, 95% CI 1.20-4.67) and (1.88 95% CI 1.04-3.40), respectively, with no significant difference regarding PH or Ozaki. However, only MV was associated with a higher risk of 30-day stroke (RR 8.42, 95% CI 1.57-45.23) with no significant difference in the other alternatives, as well as 30-day MI which showed no significant differences between any of the aortic conduits compared to the Ross procedure. Regarding 30-day major bleeding, MV was associated with a higher when compared to the Ross procedure RR (4.58, 95% CI 1.94-10.85), PH was associated with a lower risk of major bleeding with RR (0.35, 95% CI 0.17-0.71), and BV showed no significant difference. With a mean follow-up duration of 8.5 years compared to the Ross procedure, BV, PH, and MV were associated with a higher risk of long-term mortality with RR (1.89, 95% CI 1.38-2.58), (1.38, 95% CI 1.0-1.87), and (1.94, 95% CI 1.52-2.47), respectively, with the Ozaki procedure showed no significant difference. Regarding long-term stroke-with a mean of 6.3-year follow-up duration-there were no significant differences between any of the aortic conduits compared to the Ross procedure. Nevertheless, long-term need for reintervention-with a mean follow-up duration of 17.5 years-was significant of higher risk with both BV and PH with RR (3.28, 95% CI 1.21-8.84) and (2.42, 95% CI 1.05-5.58), respectively, compared to Ross procedure with MV and Ozaki having no significant difference.

CONCLUSIONS

The Ross procedure is a viable treatment option for patients undergoing SAVR, showing promising outcomes at short- and long-term follow-ups.

Complexity and Outcome of Reoperations After the Ross Procedure in the Current Era

BACKGROUND

The Ross procedure has several advantages, but the need for reintervention is inevitable. The aim of this study was to examine the complexity and outcomes of reoperation after the Ross procedure.

METHODS

Retrospective chart review was performed of patients with a prior Ross procedure who underwent reoperation at our institution from September 1991 to January 2021. Demographic, echocardiographic, surgical, and perioperative data were collected. Descriptive statistical and regression analyses were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 105 patients underwent a reoperation at Mayo Clinic after the initial Ross procedure performed at our institution (n = 16; 16.2%) or elsewhere (n = 83; 83.8%). Mean age at the Ross procedure was 27 ± 17 years, and mean age at reoperation at our institution was 37 ± 19 years. Indications for surgical procedure varied, but 64% had autograft regurgitation as 1 of their indications for reoperation. Autograft interventions were performed in 78 patients (74.2%). Pulmonary valve or conduit replacement was performed in 56 patients (53.3%). Double root replacement was performed in 11 patients (10.5%). Aortic reconstruction was performed in 37 patients (38.4%). There were 5 early deaths (5%). During a median follow-up of 6.25 years (3 months-24 years), late deaths occurred in 14 patients (13.1%). Patients with ejection fraction <30% on preoperative echocardiography had shorter duration between the Ross procedure and subsequent reoperation (P = .03).

CONCLUSIONS

Reoperations after the Ross procedure are performed for a wide range of indications, with most due to autograft dysfunction. The number of early deaths is not low. Reoperation after the Ross procedure should be advised before left ventricular systolic dysfunction.

The Ross Procedure in Adolescence and Beyond: Are There Still Contraindications?

The Ross procedure is an excellent operation to treat children and adults with aortic valve disease. Compared to prosthetic aortic valve replacement, it provides important clinical benefits in terms of survival, hemodynamics, freedom from valve-related complications, and durability, especially in women of childbearing age. However, the Ross procedure is a longer and technically more challenging operation. As a result, the choice of procedure should be driven by patient anatomy and clinical characteristics. This highlights the importance of concentrating care in Ross reference centers where surgical expertise and experience are present to ensure patient safety and long-term effectiveness of the operation. This manuscript reviews the major and relative contraindications to the Ross procedure.

Ross Procedure Versus Mechanical Versus Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement: A Network Meta-Analysis

Background The Ross operation appears to restore normal survival in young and middle-aged adults with aortic valve disease. However, there are limited data comparing it with conventional aortic valve replacement. Herein, we compared outcomes of the Ross procedure with mechanical and bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement (M-AVR and B-AVR, respectively). Methods and Results MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched through March 2022 to identify randomized controlled trials and propensity score-matched studies that investigated outcomes of patients aged ≥16 years undergoing the Ross procedure, M-AVR, or B-AVR. The systematic literature search identified 2 randomized controlled trials and 8 propensity score-matched studies involving a total of 4812 patients (Ross: n=1991; M-AVR: n=2019; and B-AVR: n=802). All-cause mortality was significantly lower in the Ross procedure group compared with M-AVR (hazard ratio [HR] [95% CI], 0.58 [0.35-0.97]; P=0.035) and B-AVR (HR [95% CI], 0.32 [0.18-0.59]; P<0.001) groups. The reintervention rate was lower after the Ross procedure and M-AVR compared with B-AVR, whereas it was higher after the Ross procedure compared with M-AVR. Major bleeding rate was lower after the Ross procedure compared with M-AVR. Long-term stroke rate was lower following the Ross procedure compared with M-AVR and B-AVR. The rate of endocarditis was also lower after the Ross procedure compared with B-AVR. Conclusions Improved long-term outcomes of the Ross procedure are demonstrated compared with conventional M-AVR and B-AVR options. These results highlight a need to enhance the recognition of the Ross procedure and revisit current guidelines on the optimal valve substitute for young and middle-aged patients.

Management Challenges in Patients Younger Than 65 Years With Severe Aortic Valve Disease

Importance

The management of aortic valve disease, including aortic stenosis and aortic regurgitation (AR), in younger adult patients (age &amp;lt;65 years) is complex, and the optimal strategy is often unclear, contingent on multiple anatomic and holistic factors.

Observations

Traditional surgical approaches carry significant considerations, including compulsory lifelong anticoagulation for patients who receive a mechanical aortic valve replacement (AVR) and the risk of structural valvular deterioration and need for subsequent valve intervention in those who receive a bioprosthetic AVR. These factors are magnified in young adults who are considering pregnancy, for whom issues of anticoagulation and valve longevity are heightened. The Ross procedure has emerged as a promising alternative; however, its adoption is limited to highly specialized centers. Valve repair is an option for selected patients with AR. These treatment options offer varying degrees of durability and are associated with different risks and complications, especially for younger adult patients. Patient-centered care from a multidisciplinary valve team allows for discussion of the optimal timing of intervention and the advantages and disadvantages of the various treatment options.

Conclusions and Relevance

The management of severe aortic valve disease in adults younger than 65 years is complex, and there are numerous considerations with each management decision. While mechanical AVR and bioprosthetic AVR have historically been the standards of care, other options are emerging for selected patients but are not yet generalizable beyond specialized surgical centers. A detailed discussion by members of the multidisciplinary heart team and the patient is an integral part of the shared decision-making process.

Do all patients with asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis need treatment?

INTRODUCTION

Although guidelines recommend a watchful waiting strategy for patients with asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis, there have been considerable advancements in surgical and anaesthetic techniques along with the success of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (AVR) as a viable alternative to surgical AVR. Inevitably, these developments have raised questions as to whether or not there is still merit in waiting for symptoms to ensue before treatment may offered to these patients.

AREA COVERED

The principal purpose of this paper is to review the data supporting earlier intervention in patients with asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis, and to project the implications these and other ongoing trials will have on indications for AVR in asymptomatic patients in the future.

EXPERT OPINION

The threshold for intervention in certain subgroups of asymptomatic patients with severe AS has already been lowered. The next frontier will inevitably be determining whether all patients with severe AS should undergo AVR irrespective of their symptomatic status.

Attached right aortic valve leaflet causing ischemia and severe regurgitation: Successful repair with Ozaki technique

INTRODUCTION

Coronary artery occlusion due to fusion of a leaflet to the sinotubular junction is a rare finding that we should consider in the differential diagnosis of young patients who have aortic regurgitation and angina.

PATIENT AND METHOD

We present a young female with severe aortic regurgitation due to right coronary fusion who underwent mini-invasive aortic valve reconstruction.

RESULTS

Postoperative evolution was satisfactory. The patient was discharged on the 5th postoperative day and after 3.5 years of follow-up he remains in functional class I, without anticoagulant treatment and with mild aortic regurgitation.

COCNCLUSION

The Ozaki technique can be used in patients with aortic regurgitation due to single leaflet dysfunction.