EACTS Expert Consensus Statement on the Ross Procedure in Adult Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Ross procedure, which involves replacing a diseased aortic valve with the patient's own pulmonary valve (pulmonary autograft), has gained renewed attention in adult patients due to mounting evidence of excellent long-term outcomes. With increasing data demonstrating restoration of life expectancy and improved valve-related outcomes, it is now considered a viable first-line option for selected young and middle-aged adults with non-repairable aortic valve disease. Nonetheless, its adoption remains inconsistent across institutions, partly due to concerns about surgical complexity, long-term durability, and the need for structured follow-up. This expert consensus document, commissioned by the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, synthesizes the current evidence and offers clinical statements for using the Ross procedure in adults. Developed through a systematic review and informed by the collective experience of a multidisciplinary panel of internationally recognized experts, the document addresses key topics including patient selection, technical refinements, and perioperative management. Emphasis is also placed on the need for procedural standardization, high-volume surgical expertise, and longitudinal imaging-based follow-up. Moreover, comparative outcome data and subgroup considerations are critically appraised, and areas for future investigation are outlined. This clinical practice document is intended to assist clinicians and Heart Teams in making informed treatment decisions, support harmonized implementation across centres, provide technical considerations to optimize procedural success, and substantially improve outcomes for patients considered for this complex but promising procedure.
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 | 0.057 | 0.088 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
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".