4.6 Article

Late results of the Ross procedure

期刊

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2018.06.037

关键词

aortic valve replacement; Ross procedure

资金

  1. Academic Enrichment Fund of the Division of Cardiovascular Surgery at Peter Munk Cardiac Centre

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The study objective was to examine the long-term results of the Ross procedure in a cohort of patients followed prospectively for more than 2 decades. Methods: From 1990 to 2004, 212 consecutive patients with a median age (interquartile range) of 34 years (28-41) underwent the Ross procedure; 82% had congenital aortic valve disease. The technique of aortic root replacement was used in one half of the patients. Patients have been followed prospectively for a median (interquartile range) of 18.0 (14.6-21.2) years. Valve function was assessed by echocardiography. Results: Cumulative mortality at 20 years was 10.8 % (95 % confidence interval, 6.5-17.8). Thirty patients required Ross-related reoperations and 3 for coronary artery disease. The cumulative probability of Ross-related reoperations at 20 years was 16.8% (95% confidence interval, 11.3-24.5), on the pulmonary autograft was 11.5 % (95 % confidence interval, 7.2-18.0), and on the pulmonary homograft was 8.2% (4.6-14.7). The implantation technique was not associated with the cumulative incidence of reoperations on the pulmonary autograft. The development of moderate or severe aortic insufficiency and pulmonary homograft dysfunction increased with time. At 20 years, the probability of aortic insufficiency was 13 % (95 % confidence interval, 8.0-20.3) and of pulmonary homograft dysfunction was 19.7% (95% confidence interval, 13.9-27.2). Preoperative aortic insufficiency was associated with increased odds of postoperative aortic insufficiency. Conclusions: The long-term results of the Ross procedure are excellent regardless of the implantation technique, but there is a progressive deterioration of function of both semilunar valves.

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

4.6
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