Ross procedure after prior aortic valve intervention: Outcomes from the North American Ross Consortium database
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Excellent results for the Ross procedure have been demonstrated in selected, single-center series. Outcomes for higher-risk patients, including those with prior aortic valve intervention, are not well described, however. This multicenter, retrospective analysis of adult recipients of the Ross procedure between 1994 and 2025 at 4 high-volume aortic centers compared patients with prior surgical aortic valve intervention (SAVI) and those with no prior aortic valve intervention. The primary outcome was operative mortality. Secondary outcomes included perioperative outcomes, longitudinal mortality, and reintervention. The study cohort comprised 594 patients, including 29 with prior SAVI and 565 without prior SAVI. The median age at surgery was 38 years (interquartile range [IQR], 32-48 years) for the SAVI group and 42 years (IQR, 32-51 years) for the non-SAVI group ( P = .16). Racial distribution, body mass index, and male sex were comparable between the 2 groups. Rates of endocarditis were higher in the SAVI group compared to the non-SAVI group (treated: 6.9% vs 4.3%; active: 10.3% vs 1.4%; P = .012). There was 1 (3.5%) operative death in the SAVI group and 4 (0.7%) operative deaths the non-SAVI group ( P = .22). Five-year Kaplan-Meier survival was higher in the non-SAVI group (log-rank P = .004), although no causes of death were cardiac in nature. Cardiac causes of death were absent in those with prior SAVI following the Ross procedure, suggesting that the Ross procedure can be safe in these patients when performed by skilled, experienced surgeons. Further studies are needed to more fully assess Ross procedure outcomes in patients with prior SAVI.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".