4.7 Review

Ross Procedure in Adults for Cardiologists and Cardiac Surgeons JACC State-of-the-Art Review

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY
卷 72, 期 22, 页码 2761-2777

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.08.2200

关键词

aortic valve replacement; pulmonary autograft; Ross procedure; young adults

资金

  1. Abbott
  2. Cleveland Clinic
  3. Duke Clinical Research Institute
  4. Mayo Clinic
  5. Mount Sinai School of Medicine
  6. Population Health Research Institute
  7. Boehringer Ingelheim
  8. Amarin
  9. Amgen
  10. AstraZeneca
  11. Bayer
  12. Bristol-Myers Squibb
  13. Chiesi
  14. Eisai
  15. Ethicon
  16. Forest Laboratories
  17. Idorsia
  18. Ironwood
  19. Ischemix
  20. Lilly
  21. Medtronic
  22. PhaseBio
  23. Pfizer
  24. Regeneron
  25. Roche
  26. Sanofi
  27. Synaptic
  28. Medicines Company

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The ideal aortic valve substitute for young and middle-aged adults remains elusive. The Ross procedure (pulmonary autograft replacement) is the only operation that allows replacement of the diseased aortic valve with a living substitute. However, use of this procedure has declined significantly due to concerns over increased surgical risk and potential longterm failure of the operation. Several recent publications from expert centers have shown that in the current era, the Ross procedure can be performed safely and reproducibly in appropriately selected patients. Furthermore, an increasing body of evidence suggests that the Ross procedure is associated with better long-term outcomes compared with conventional aortic valve replacement in young and middle-aged adults. In this paper, the authors review the indications and technical considerations of the Ross procedure, describe its advantages and drawbacks, and discuss patient selection criteria. Finally, the authors provide a comprehensive synthesis of the current Ross published reports to enable cardiologists and surgeons to make appropriate decisions for their patients with aortic valve disease. (c) 2018 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据