Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T07:45:12.722Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Is the Ross procedure as good as we thought it would be?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 October 2006

Bradley S. Marino ,
Sara Pasquali ,
Thomas L. Spray  and
Gil Wernovsky
Bradley S. Marino
Affiliation:
Division of Cardiology, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America Division of Critical Care Medicine, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America
Sara Pasquali
Affiliation:
Division of Cardiology, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America Division of Critical Care Medicine, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America
Thomas L. Spray
Affiliation:
Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America
Gil Wernovsky
Affiliation:
Division of Cardiology, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America Division of Critical Care Medicine, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

For patients requiring intervention because of progressive disease of the aortic valve, the perfect palliation will provide a valve that produces normal dynamics of flow, will not require anti-coagulation, will grow with the patient, and have long term durability. Current surgical interventions include aortic valvoplasty, or replacement with either a mechanical or tissue prosthesis. Options for tissue valves include insertion of a pulmonary autograft in the Ross procedure, a cadaveric homograft, or porcine or bovine xenograft valves. The optimal option is still debated.

Keywords

Valve surgerycongenital cardiac diseasepulmonary autograftaortic valvoplasty
Type
Long-term Outcomes
Information
Cardiology in the Young , Volume 16 , Supplement S3: Controversies and Challenges of the Atrioventricular Junctions and Other Challenges Facing Paediatric Cardiovascular Practitioners and their Patients , September 2006 , pp. 125 - 130
Copyright
© 2006 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ross DN. Replacement of aortic and mitral valves with a pulmonary autograft. Lancet 1967; 2: 956–958.Google Scholar
Matsuki O, Okita Y, Almeida RS, et al. Two decades' experience with aortic valve replacement with pulmonary autograft. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1988; 95: 705–711.Google Scholar
Gerosa G, McKay R, Ross DN. Replacement of the aortic valve root with a pulmonary autograft in children. Ann Thorac Surg 1991; 51: 424–429.Google Scholar
Kouchoukos NT, Davila-Roman VG, Spray TL, Murphy SF, Perrillo JB. Replacement of the aortic root with a pulmonary autograft in children and young adults with aortic valve disease. N Engl J Med 1994; 330: 1–6.Google Scholar
Reddy VM, Rajasinghe HA, Teitel DF, Hanley FL. Atrioventriculoplasty with the pulmonary autograft: the “Ross-Konno” procedure. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1996; 111: 158–167.Google Scholar
Calhoon JH, Bolton JWR. Ross/Konno procedure for critical aortic stenosis in infancy. Ann Thorac Surg 1995; 60: S596–S599.Google Scholar
Marino BS, Wernovsky G, Rychik J, Bockoven JR, Godinez RI, Spray TL. Early results of the Ross procedure in simple and complex left heart disease. Circulation 1999; 100 (Suppl II): II162–II166.Google Scholar
Ohye RG, Gomez CA, Ohye BJ, Goldberg CS, Bove EL. The Ross/Konno procedure in neonates and infants: intermediate-term survival and autograft function. Ann Thorac Surg 2001; 72: 823–830.Google Scholar
Luciani GB, Favaro A, Casali G, Santini F, Mazzucco A. Ross operation in the young: a ten-year experience. Ann Thorac Surg 2005; 80: 2271–2277.Google Scholar
Elkins RC, Knott-Craig CJ, Ward KE, McCue C, Lane MM. Pulmonary autograft in children: realized growth potential. Ann Thorac Surg 1994; 57: 1387–1394.Google Scholar
Simon P, Aschauer C, Moidl R, et al. Growth of the pulmonary autograft after the Ross operation in childhood. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2001; 19: 118–121.Google Scholar
Doss M, Wood JP, Martens S, Wimmer-Greinecker G, Moritz A. Do pulmonary autografts provide better outcomes than mechanical valves? A prospective randomized trial. Ann Thorac Surg 2005; 80: 2194–2198.Google Scholar
Edmunds Jr LH. Thrombotic and bleeding complications of prosthetic heart valves. Ann Thorac Surg 1987; 44: 430–445.Google Scholar
Streif W, Andrew M, Marzinotto V, et al. Analysis of warfarin therapy in pediatric patients: a prospective cohort study of 319 patients. Blood 1999; 94: 3007–3014.Google Scholar
Al-Khaja N, Belboul A, Rashid M, et al. The influence of age on the durability of Carpentier-Edwards biological valves: thirteen year follow-up. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 1991; 5: 635–640.Google Scholar
Turrentine MW, Ruzmetov M, Vijay P, Bills RG, Brown JW. Biological versus mechanical aortic valve replacement in children. Ann Thorac Surg 2001; 71: S356–360.Google Scholar
Gerosa G, McKay R, Davies J, Ross DN. Comparison of the aortic homograft and the pulmonary autograft for the aortic valve or root replacement in children. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1991; 102: 51–61.Google Scholar
Laforest I, Dumesnil JG, Briand M, Cartier PC, Pibarot P. Hemodynamic performance at rest and during exercise after aortic valve replacement. comparison of pulmonary autograft versus aortic homograft. Circulation 2002; 106(suppl I): I157–162.Google Scholar
Duran C, Kumar N, Gometza B, al Halees Z. Treated bovine and autologous pericardium for aortic valve reconstruction. Ann Thorac Surg 1998; 66: S166–S169.Google Scholar
Bacha EA, Satou GM, Moran AM, et al. Valve-sparing operation for balloon-inducted aortic regurgitation in congenital aortic stenosis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2001; 122: 162–168.Google Scholar
Oury JH, Hiro SP, Maxwell JM, Lamberti JJ, Duran CM. The Ross procedure: current registry results. Ann Thorac Surg 1998; 66(suppl): S162–165.Google Scholar
Maron BJ, Hutchins GM. The development of the semilunar valves in the human heart. Am J Pathol 1974; 74: 331–344.Google Scholar
Hokken RB, Bartelings MM, Bogers JJC, Gittenberger-de-Groot AC. Morphology of the pulmonary and aortic roots with regard to the pulmonary autograft procedure. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1997; 113: 453–461.Google Scholar
Lalezari S, Hazekamp MG, Bartelings MM, Schoof PH, Gittenberger-De Groot AC. Pulmonary artery remodeling in transposition of the great arteries: relevance for neoaortic root dilatation. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2003; 126: 1053–1060.Google Scholar
Rabkin-Aikawa E, Aikawa M, Farber M, et al. Clinical pulmonary autograft valves: pathologic evidence of adaptive remodeling in the aortic site. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2004; 128: 552–561.Google Scholar
Hazekamp MG, Grotenhuis HB, Schoof PH, Rijlaarsdam MEB, Ottenkamp J, Dion RAE. Results of the Ross operation in a pediatric population. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2005; 27: 975–979.Google Scholar
Elkins RC, Lane MM, McCue C. Ross operation in children: late results. J Heart Valve Dis 2001; 10: 736–741.Google Scholar
Kouchoukos NT, Masetti P, Nickerson NJ, Castner CF, Shannon WD, Davila-Roman VG. The Ross procedure: long-term clinical and echocardiographic follow-up. Ann Thorac Surg 2004; 78: 773–781.Google Scholar
Mazzitelli D, Guenther T, Schreiber C, Wottke M, Michel J, Meisner H. Aortic valve replacement in children: are we on the right track? Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 1998; 13: 565–571.Google Scholar
Alexiou C, McDonald A, Langley SM, Dalrymple-Hay MJ, Haw MP, Monro JL. Aortic valve replacement in children: are mechanical prostheses a good option? Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2000; 17: 125–133.Google Scholar
Bellhouse BJ, Bellhouse F, Abbott JA, Talbot L. Mechanism of valvular incompetence in aortic sinus dilatation. Cardiovasc Res 1986; 34: 83–94.Google Scholar
Roman MJ, Devereux RB, Niles NW, et al. Aortic root dilatation as a cause of isolated, severe aortic regurgitation. Ann Int Med 1987; 106: 800–807.Google Scholar
Marino BS, Wernovsky G, McElhinney DB, et al. Neo-aortic valvar function after the arterial switch. Cardiol Young 2006; 16: 481–489.Google Scholar
Cohen MS, Marino BS, McElhinney DB, et al. Neo-aortic root dilation and valve regurgitation up to 21 years after staged reconstruction for hypoplastic left heart syndrome. J Am Coll Cardiol 2003; 42: 533–540.Google Scholar
Schwartz ML, Gauvreau K, del Nido P, Mayer JE, Colan SD. Long-term predictors of aortic root dilation and aortic regurgitation after arterial switch operation Circulation 2004; 110 (11 Suppl 1): II128–II132.Google Scholar
Tantengco MV, Humes RA, Clapp SK, et al. Aortic root dilatation after the Ross procedure. Am J Cardiol 1999; 83: 915–920.Google Scholar
Solowiejczyk DE, Bourlon F, Apfel HD, et al. Serial echocardiographic measurements of the pulmonary autograft in the aortic valve position after the Ross operation in a pediatric population using normal pulmonary artery dimensions as the reference standard. Am J Cardiol 2000; 85: 1119–1123.Google Scholar
Puntel RA, Webber SA, Ettedgui JA, Tacy TA. Rapid enlargement of the neo-aortic root after the Ross procedure in children. Am J Cardiol 1999; 84: 747–749.Google Scholar
Solymar L, Sudow G, Holmgren D. Increase in size of the pulmonary autograft after the Ross operation in children: growth or dilation? J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2000; 119: 4–9.Google Scholar
Takkenberg JJ, van Herwerden LA, Galema TW, et al. Serial echocardiographic assessment of neo-aortic regurgitation and root dimensions after the modified Ross procedure. J Heart Valve Dis 2006; 15: 100–106.Google Scholar
Luciani GB, Casali G, Favaro A, et al. Fate of the aortic root late after Ross operation. Circulation 2003; 108: II61–II67.Google Scholar
Simon-Kupilik N, Bialy J, Moidl R, et al. Dilation of the autograft root after the Ross operation. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2002; 21: 470–473.Google Scholar
Carr-White GS, Kilner PJ, Hon JK, et al. Incidence, location, pathology, and significance of pulmonary homograft stenosis after the Ross operation. Circulation 2001; 18: 116–120.Google Scholar
Tweddell JS, Pelech AN, Frommelt PC, et al. Factors affecting longevity of homograft valves used in right ventricular outflow tract reconstruction for congenital heart disease. Circulation 2000; 102: III130–III135.Google Scholar
Lupinetti FM, Duncan BW, Scifres AM, et al. Intermediate term results in pediatric aortic valve replacement. Ann Thorac Surg 1999; 68: 521–525.Google Scholar
Laudito A, Brook MM, Suleman S, et al. The Ross procedure in children and young adults: a word of caution. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2001; 122: 147–153.Google Scholar
Hauser M, Bengel FM, Kühn A, et al. Myocardial blood flow and flow reserve after coronary reimplantation in patients after the arterial switch and Ross operation. Circulation 2001; 103: 1875–1880.Google Scholar
Gauthier SC, Barton JG, Lane MM, Elkins RC. Pulmonary autografts in patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction. Ann Thorac Surg 2003; 76: 689–693.Google Scholar
Nimaya K, Elkins RC, Knott-Craig CJ, Santangelo KL, Cannon MB, Lane MM. Normalization of left ventricular dimensions after Ross operation with aortic annular reduction. Ann Thorac Surg 1999; 68: 812–818.Google Scholar
Marino BS, Pasquali SK, Wernovsky G, et al. Exercise performance in children and adolescents after the Ross procedure. Cardiol Young 2006; 16: 40–47.Google Scholar
Wernovsky G, Marino BS, Spray TL. Immediate outcomes after the Ross operation in children and adults. Prog Pediatr Cardiol 2003; 16: 141–147.Google Scholar
Bockoven JR, Wernovsky G, Vetter VL, Wieand TS, Spray TL, Rhodes LA. Perioperative conduction and rhythm disturbances following the Ross procedure in children and young adults. Ann Thorac Surg 1998; 66: 1383–1388.Google Scholar
Skillington PD, Fuller JA, Grigg LE, Yapanis AG, Porter GF. Ross procedure: inserting the autograft using a fully supported root replacement method; techniques and results. J Heart Valve Dis 1999; 8: 593–600.Google Scholar
Sievers H, Dahmen G, Graf B, Stierle U, Ziegler A, Schmidtke C. Midterm results of the Ross procedure preserving the patient's aortic root. Circulation 2003; 108 (Suppl 2): 1155–1160.Google Scholar
Slater M, Shen I, Welke K, Komanapalli C, Ungerleider R. Modification of the Ross procedure to prevent autograft dilatation. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Pediatr Card Surg Ann 2005; 8: 181–184.Google Scholar
Schoen FJ, Levy RJ. Tissue heart valves: current challenges and future research perspectives. J. Biomed Mater Res 1999; 47: 439–465.Google Scholar
Rabkin E, Schoen FJ. Cardiovascular tissue engineering. Cardiovasc Pathol 2002; 11: 305–317.Google Scholar
Kanter KR, Fyfe DA, Mahle WT, Forbess JM, Kirshbom PM. Results with the freestyle porcine aortic root for right ventricular outflow tract reconstruction in children Ann Thorac Surg 2003; 76: 1889–1895.Google Scholar
Gleason TG, David TE, Coselli J, Hammon JW, Bavaria JE. St. Jude Medical Toronto biologic aortic root prosthesis: early FDA phase II IDE study results. Ann Thorac Surg 2004; 78: 786–793.Google Scholar