4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

The Ross procedure offers excellent survival compared with mechanical aortic valve replacement in a real-world setting

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CARDIO-THORACIC SURGERY
卷 46, 期 3, 页码 409-414

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/ejcts/ezt663

关键词

Aortic valve replacement; Mechanical valve; Pulmonary autograft; Ross operation; Outcome (survival, reoperation)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The ideal prosthesis for young patients requiring aortic valve replacement has not been defined to date. Although the Ross procedure provides excellent survival, its application is still limited. We compared the long-term survival after the Ross procedure with mechanical aortic valve replacement. All consecutive Ross procedures and mechanical aortic valve replacements performed between 1991 and 2008 at a single centre were analysed. Only adult patients between 18 and 50aEuro integral years of age were included in the study. Survival and valve-related complications were evaluated. Furthermore, survival was compared with the age- and sex-matched Austrian population. A total of 159 Ross patients and 173 mechanical valve patients were included. The cumulative survival for the Ross procedure was significantly better, with survival rates of 96, 94 and 93% at 5, 10 and 15aEuro integral years, respectively, in comparison to 90, 84 and 75% (P < 0.01) for patients with mechanical valves. A Cox regression analysis including patients' age, gender and valve type revealed age and the type of aortic valve replacement as independent significant factors influencing survival (for age, hazard ratio = 1.1, 95% confidence interval = 1.0-1.1, P = 0.03; and for valve type, hazard ratio = 2.6, 95% confidence interval = 1.2-5.8, P = 0.02). The observed survival was comparable to the expected standard survival for the Ross group but was significantly reduced in the mechanical valve group. In a real-world setting, the Ross procedure is associated with a long-term survival benefit in young adults in comparison to mechanical aortic valve replacement.

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