The Ross procedure in patients older than 50: A sensible proposition?

Outcomes of the Ross procedure in patients older versus younger than 50 years old

OBJECTIVES

The Ross procedure is traditionally considered for young adult patients with aortic valve disease. This study compares long-term outcomes of patients undergoing the Ross procedure who are ≥50 and <50-years old.

METHODS

Data were collected from 225 patients undergoing Ross procedure at a single centre from 1994 to 2019. Patients were categorized into younger (<50-years old; n = 156) and older (≥50-years old; n = 69) cohorts. Baseline demographics clinical outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

The mean age was 36 ± 8.1 and 55 ± 4.2 years in the younger and older cohort, respectively. Both groups were predominantly male (58.5% vs 69.6%; P = 0.59). The younger group had a higher rate of aortic insufficiency (51% vs 26.1%; P < 0.01), and bicuspid aortic valve (81.4% vs 58.0%; P < 0.01). Aortic stenosis was more prevalent in the older cohort (25.6% vs 58.0%; P < 0.01). Operative mortality was acceptable in both groups (1.3% vs 4.3%; P = 0.15). Survival up to 10 years was not statistically different between 2 groups (96.2% vs 91.3% P = 0.16), whereas survival up to 15 years for younger patients was significantly higher (94.9% vs 85.5%; P = 0.03). After non-cardiac related deaths were excluded, survival up to 15 years (98.7% vs 91.3%; P = 0.02) was significantly lower than younger patients. In both groups, survival after the Ross procedure was similar to the age- and sex-matched US population.

CONCLUSIONS

Survival up to 10 years after Ross procedure were similar, but up to 15 years was significantly higher in younger patients. The Ross procedure restored patients from both groups to expected survival. Our results suggest that at experienced centres, the Ross procedure is a safe and reasonable option for patients who are 50 years and older.

Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Young, Low-risk Patients with Severe Aortic Stenosis

Aortic stenosis is a common form of acquired degenerative valvular disease associated with poor survival after the onset of symptoms. Treatment options for patients with aortic stenosis in addition to medical therapy include surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) with either tissue or mechanical valves, or transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with either balloon-expandable or self-expanding valves via either transfemoral or alternative access routes. In this review, the authors discuss the current evidence and special considerations regarding the use of TAVR versus SAVR in the management of severe aortic stenosis in young (<65 years of age), low-risk patients, highlighting the history of aortic stenosis treatment, the current guidelines and recommendations, and important issues that remain to be addressed. Ultimately, until ongoing clinical trials with long-term follow-up data shed light on whether interventions for aortic stenosis can be broadened to a low-risk population, TAVR in young, low-risk patients should be undertaken with caution and with guidance from a multidisciplinary heart team.

Supporting the Ross procedure: preserving root physiology while mitigating autograft dilatation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this article is to describe the optimized approach to nonrepairable aortic valve disease in young adults with a Ross procedure, while preserving the dynamic physiology of the aortic root.

RECENT FINDINGS

As the techniques for supporting pulmonary autografts continue to be refined, and the applicability of the Ross procedure continues to expand, an assessment of the various techniques based on aortic root physiology is warranted. Semi-resorbable scaffolds show promise in ovine models for improving the Ross procedure. Recent long-term outcomes for the Dacron inclusion technique in comparison to more physiologic methods of support emphasize the importance of balancing the prevention of early dilatation with the preservation of root haemodynamics. As this review will synthesize, the dynamic physiology of the root may be preserved even in patients at a higher risk of autograft dilatation.

SUMMARY

The favourable long-term outcomes of the Ross procedure can be partly attributed to the ability of the autograft to restore dynamism to the neoaortic root. Patient-specific modifications that respect root physiology can tailor the Ross procedure to address each patient's risk factors for early dilatation and late failure. As such, the Ross procedure should be recognized as an increasingly favourable solution for a wide spectrum of nonpreservable aortic valve disease in young adults.

The Ross procedure and valve-sparing root replacement procedures in the adult patient: do guidelines follow the evidence?

Prosthetic aortic valve replacements have long been the mainstay of valvular surgery due to their favorable outcomes and low operative complexity. Yet, mechanical valves require lifelong anticoagulation, whereas bioprosthetic valves increase the risk for earlier and more frequent reoperation. Alternative reconstructive techniques have been proposed to address these challenges. These include valve-sparing root replacement procedures if the native aortic valve can be salvaged, and the Ross procedure, which nearly eliminates prosthetic valve-related thromboembolism, anticoagulation-related hemorrhage and endocarditis. Both procedures are technically more complex and thus subject to surgeons' volume and expertise compared to conventional aortic valve replacements. However, they are associated with more favorable outcomes compared to aortic valve replacements if performed by experienced surgeons, especially in younger patients. Nevertheless, despite the growing high-quality literature supporting both procedures, existing multi-society guidelines fail to acknowledge the strength of evidence in support of valve-sparing root replacement procedures and the Ross procedure. In this review, we summarize the existing long-term evidence for the use of each procedure, describe the current guidelines for the treatment of aortic valve pathology, and propose the reevaluation of guidelines based on the available clinical evidence.