Single-centre experience of 101 paediatric and adult Ross procedures: Mid-term results

Angela McBrien, Milind Chaudhari, David S. Crossland, Helen Aspey, Alison Heads-Baister, Massimo Griselli, John O'Sullivan, Asif Hasan

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

4 Scopus citations

Abstract

We aimed to determine outcomes for the Ross procedure in paediatric and adult patients, with particular emphasis on survival, complication and reintervention rates. A retrospective review of 101 patients who had the Ross procedure in a congenital cardiac surgical centre serving a population of approximately 2.5 million was performed. There were 69 adults and 32 children with a mean age of 24.8 ± 13.9 years. Indications for surgery were aortic stenosis (48), regurgitation (10), mixed disease (35) and complex left outflow tract obstruction (8). The mean follow-up duration was 4.7 ± 3.7 years. The mini-inclusion technique was used to incorporate the autograft, and in all cases, pulmonary homografts were placed in the right ventricular outflow tract. Sub-aortic resection was also performed in six and Ross-Konno operations in eight patients. There were no early deaths and there was one late death secondary to endocarditis. Freedom from reintervention was 92% at 5 years and 77% at 10 years. Children were significantly more likely to require reintervention (16%, 5 of 32 versus 4%, 3 of 69, P = 0.05). The Ross procedure carries low early and mid-term mortality, and reintervention rates appear acceptable. The Ross procedure should be considered a feasible alternative to prosthetic valves in patients who require aortic valve replacement.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)570-574
Number of pages5
JournalInteractive Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery
Volume14
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - May 2012
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • Aortic valve
  • Mortality
  • Reoperation

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Single-centre experience of 101 paediatric and adult Ross procedures: Mid-term results'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this