4.8 Review

The Ross Procedure A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

期刊

CIRCULATION
卷 119, 期 2, 页码 222-228

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.726349

关键词

epidemiology; prognosis; surgery; survival; valves

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background-Reports on outcome after the Ross procedure are limited by small study size and show variable durability results. A systematic review of evidence on outcome after the Ross procedure may improve insight into outcome and potential determinants. Methods and Results-A systematic review of reports published from January 2000 to January 2008 on outcome after the Ross procedure was undertaken. Thirty-nine articles meeting the inclusion criteria were allocated to 3 categories: (1) consecutive series, (2) adult patient series, and (3) pediatric patient series. With the use of an inverse variance approach, pooled morbidity and mortality rates were obtained. Pooled early mortality for consecutive, adult, and pediatric patients series was 3.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.8 to 4.9), 3.2% (95% CI, 1.5 to 6.6), and 4.2% (95% CI, 1.4 to 11.5). Autograft deterioration rates were 1.15% (95% CI, 1.06 to 2.06), 0.78% (95% CI, 0.43 to 1.40), and 1.38%/ patient-year (95% CI, 0.68 to 2.80), respectively, and for right ventricular outflow tract conduit were 0.91% ( 95% CI, 0.56 to 1.47), 0.55% (95% CI, 0.26 to 1.17), and 1.60%/patient-year (95% CI, 0.84 to 3.05), respectively. For studies with mean patient age > 18 years versus mean patient age <18 years, pooled autograft and right ventricular outflow tract deterioration rates were 1.14% (95% CI, 0.83 to 1.57) versus 1.69% (95% CI, 1.02 to 2.79) and 0.65% (95% CI, 0.41 to 1.02) versus 1.66%/patient-year (95% CI, 0.98 to 2.82), respectively. Conclusions-The Ross procedure provides satisfactory results for both children and young adults. Durability limitations become apparent by the end of the first postoperative decade, in particular in younger patients. (Circulation. 2009;119:222-228.)

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

4.8
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