Long-term outcomes of the Ross procedure in adults with severe aortic stenosis: single-centre experience with 20 years of follow-up†
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The optimal prosthesis option for aortic valve replacement in adult patients<60 years of age with severe aortic stenosis (AS) remains controversial. The objective was to determine the long-term outcomes of the Ross procedure in this population. METHODS: Between 1990 and 2013, 276 patients aged 18 years and above (mean 40.3±10.6) underwent an elective Ross procedure. Among them, 221 patients had predominant severe AS; these patients form the study group. The Ross procedure was performed either by aortic root replacement (n=190; 86%) or the subcoronary technique (n=31; 14%). There were 169 patients with bicuspid valves and 33 redo operations including previous aortic valve repair (n=6) and replacement (n=9) for severe AS. Demographic, preoperative, postoperative and longitudinal clinical and echocardiographic data were collected prospectively. The median and mean follow-up were 11.4 years (range: 1-20.1 years) and 10.1±5.9 years, respectively. The follow-up was complete in all patients. Kaplan-Meier actuarial survival analysis was performed to assess long-term survival, freedom from reoperation for autograft and/or homograft failure and freedom from autograft valve insufficiency. Cox regression risk analysis was performed to identify factors associated with autograft or homograft reoperations. RESULTS: The perioperative mortality rate was 0.9% (n=2). The incidence rate of early reoperation for bleeding was 5.9%. The actuarial survival rate at 10 and 15 years following surgery was 92.1 and 90.5%, respectively. Ross-related reoperations occurred in 21 patients during follow-up: autograft dysfunction (n=9), homograft dysfunction (n=6) and both (n=6). The rate of freedom from Ross-related reoperation was 94.7 and 87.7% at 10 and 15 years, respectively. The rate of freedom from reoperation for autograft failure was 97.6 and 91.5%, the rate of freedom from reoperation for homograft failure was 95.7 and 90.8%, and the rate of freedom from moderate or severe autograft regurgitation was 94.1 and 85.6% at 10 and 15 years, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with available aortic bioprosthetic alternatives in young adults with severe AS, the Ross procedure provides an excellent long-term option for patients with predominant severe AS who seek a durable operation without anticoagulation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".