Circulation · 2016
Long-Term Outcomes of the Ross Procedure Versus Mechanical Aortic Valve Replacement: Propensity-Matched Cohort Study.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Mazine Amine, David Tirone E, Rao Vivek, Hickey Edward J, Christie Shakira, Manlhiot Cedric, Ouzounian Maral
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The ideal aortic valve substitute in young and middle-aged adults remains unknown. We sought to compare the long-term outcomes of patients undergoing the Ross procedure and those receiving a mechanical aortic valve replacement (AVR).
METHODS: From 1990 to 2014, 258 patients underwent a Ross procedure and 1444 had a mechanical AVR at a single institution. Patients were matched into 208 pairs through the use of a propensity score. Mean age was 37.2±10.2 years, and 63% were male. Mean follow-up was 14.2±6.5 years.
RESULTS: Overall survival was equivalent (Ross versus AVR: hazard ratio, 0.91, 95% confidence interval, 0.38-2.16; P=0.83), although freedom from cardiac- and valve-related mortality was improved in the Ross group (Ross versus AVR: hazard ratio, 0.22; 95% confidence interval, 0.034-0.86; P=0.03). Freedom from reintervention was equivalent after both procedures (Ross versus AVR: hazard ratio, 1.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.76-4.94; P=0.18). Long-term freedom from stroke or major bleeding was superior after the Ross procedure (Ross versus AVR: hazard ratio, 0.09; 95% confidence interval, 0.02-0.31; P<0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Long-term survival and freedom from reintervention were comparable between the Ross procedure and mechanical AVR. However, the Ross procedure was associated with improved freedom from cardiac- and valve-related mortality and a significant reduction in the incidence of stroke and major bleeding. In specialized centers, the Ross procedure represents an excellent option and should be considered for young and middle-aged adults undergoing AVR.
METHODS: From 1990 to 2014, 258 patients underwent a Ross procedure and 1444 had a mechanical AVR at a single institution. Patients were matched into 208 pairs through the use of a propensity score. Mean age was 37.2±10.2 years, and 63% were male. Mean follow-up was 14.2±6.5 years.
RESULTS: Overall survival was equivalent (Ross versus AVR: hazard ratio, 0.91, 95% confidence interval, 0.38-2.16; P=0.83), although freedom from cardiac- and valve-related mortality was improved in the Ross group (Ross versus AVR: hazard ratio, 0.22; 95% confidence interval, 0.034-0.86; P=0.03). Freedom from reintervention was equivalent after both procedures (Ross versus AVR: hazard ratio, 1.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.76-4.94; P=0.18). Long-term freedom from stroke or major bleeding was superior after the Ross procedure (Ross versus AVR: hazard ratio, 0.09; 95% confidence interval, 0.02-0.31; P<0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Long-term survival and freedom from reintervention were comparable between the Ross procedure and mechanical AVR. However, the Ross procedure was associated with improved freedom from cardiac- and valve-related mortality and a significant reduction in the incidence of stroke and major bleeding. In specialized centers, the Ross procedure represents an excellent option and should be considered for young and middle-aged adults undergoing AVR.