Propensity-Matched Comparison of the Ross Procedure and Prosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement in Adults.

BACKGROUND

There has recently been renewed interest in the Ross procedure in adults.

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this study was to compare long-term outcomes after the Ross procedure vs biological and mechanical aortic valve replacement (AVR) in adults (aged 18-50 years) undergoing aortic valve surgery.

METHODS

Mandatory California and New York databases were queried between 1997 and 2014. Exclusion criteria included: ≥1 concomitant procedure, reoperations, infective endocarditis, intravenous drug use, hemodialysis, and out-of-state residency. Propensity matching (1:1:1) was used, resulting in 434 patients per group. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. Secondary endpoints were stroke, major bleeding, reoperation, and endocarditis. Median follow-up was 12.5 years (IQR: 9.3-15.7 years).

RESULTS

At 15 years, actuarial survival after the Ross procedure was 93.1% (95% CI: 89.1%-95.7%), similar to that of the age-, sex-, and race-matched U.S. general population. It was significantly lower after biological AVR (HR: 0.42; 95% CI: 0.23-0.075; P = 0.003) and mechanical AVR (HR: 0.45; 95% CI: 0.26-0.79; P = 0.006). At 15 years, the Ross procedure was associated with a lower cumulative risk of reintervention (P = 0.008) and endocarditis (P = 0.01) than biological AVR. In contrast, at 15 years, the Ross procedure was associated with a higher cumulative incidence of reoperation (P < 0.001) but lower risks of stroke (P = 0.03) and major bleeding (P = 0.016) than mechanical AVR. Thirty-day mortality after valve-related complications was lowest after a reintervention.

CONCLUSIONS

In young adults, the Ross procedure is associated with better long-term survival and freedom from valve-related complications compared with prosthetic AVR. This confirms the notion that a living valve substitute in the aortic position translates into improved clinically relevant outcomes.