Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

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

30 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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
Volume55
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Feb 2019

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

  1. SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being
    SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being

Keywords

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

Fingerprint

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