Abstract 19239: Patient Outcomes and Quality of Life 15 years or more after the Ross Operation in Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The Ross operation provides a living aortic valve substitute with very good results in the medium term. There is continuing concern about its durability in adults. Methods: We reviewed a series of patients operated on (by a single surgeon) and prospectively followed up at our centre who underwent the Ross operation at least 15 years before. Results: Among 84 patients (69 male, median age at operation 37.5 (range 19.8 - 64.4)), there were 1 early and 4 late deaths. Actuarial survival was 94.9% (55 patients at risk (PAR)) at 15 years and 87.6% (10 PAR) at 19 years, compared to 95.6% at 15 years and 92.7% at 19 years for an age and sex matched UK population. Actuarial freedom from aortic or pulmonary reoperation was 89% (51 PAR) at 15 years and 72.1% at 19 years (10 PAR). Serial echocardiographic follow-up demonstrates stable aortic root dimensions over time without ventricular dilatation. Figure 1 shows the degree of aortic regurgitation over time, which has not increased in the large majority of patients. We assessed quality of life using the Short Form-36 point questionnaire which was 50·7 [median score, 2014, IQR 43.4-59.7] vs 51·0 [2009, IQR 45·9-56·1], non-significant). This compares favourably with previously published quality of life scores in patients with prosthetic valves. Of note, our oldest patient (a female aged 64 at operation), is now 80 years old with maintained valve and ventricular function, and leading an active life. Conclusions: It is concluded that the Ross operation provides a durable aortic valve and root substitute with good quality of life for periods of up to twenty years.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".