The Ross procedure versus prosthetic and homograft aortic valve replacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Graham R. McClure, Emilie P. Belley-Cote, Kevin Um, Saurabh Gupta, Ismail Bouhout, Hugo Lortie, Hatim Alraddadi, Ali Alsagheir, William F. McIntyre, Dan Mihai Dorobantu, Matthias Bossard, Kevin Kim, Serban Stoica, John Eikelboom, Maral Ouzounian, Michael W.A. Chu, Dominic Parry, Ismail El-Hamamsy, Richard P. Whitlock*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle (Academic Journal)peer-review

16 Citations (Scopus)


OBJECTIVES: Young adults undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR) have decreased life expectancy compared to matched controls. The Ross procedure aims to improve valve lifespan while avoiding anticoagulation. We prepared a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the Ross procedure compared to conventional AVR. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane CENTRAL for studies evaluating the Ross procedure versus any conventional AVR in adult patients. We performed screening, full-text assessment, risk of bias evaluation and data collection independently and in duplicate. We evaluated the risk of bias with the ROBINS-I and Cochrane tools and quality of evidence with the GRADE framework. We pooled data using the random- and fixed-effects models. RESULTS: Thirteen observational studies and 2 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified (n = 5346). No observational study was rated as having low risk of bias. The Ross procedure was associated with decreased late mortality in observational and RCT data [mean length of follow-up 2.6 years, relative risk (RR) 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38-0.84, I2 = 58%, very low quality]. The RCT estimate of effect was similar (mean length of follow-up 8.8 years, RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.11-0.96, I2 = 66%, very low quality). No difference was observed in mortality <30 days after surgery. All-site reintervention was similar between groups in cohorts and significantly reduced by the Ross procedure in RCTs (RR 1.41, 95% CI 0.89-2.24, I2 = 55%, very low quality and RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.22-0.78, I2 = 68%, high quality, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Observational data, with residual confounding, and RCT data suggest a late survival benefit with the Ross procedure with no increased risk of reintervention when compared to conventional AVR. Considering the quality of available evidence and limited followup, additional high-quality randomized studies are required to strengthen these findings.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)247-255
Number of pages9
JournalEuropean Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery
Issue number2
Publication statusPublished - 1 Feb 2019


  • Aortic valve replacement
  • Bioprosthetic valve replacement
  • Homograft valve replacement
  • Mechanical valve replacement
  • Pulmonary autograft
  • The Ross procedure


Dive into the research topics of 'The Ross procedure versus prosthetic and homograft aortic valve replacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this