The ideal aortic valve substitute in young and middle-aged adults remains unknown. We sought to compare the long-term outcomes of patients undergoing the Ross procedure and those receiving a mechanical aortic valve replacement (AVR).Methods:
From 1990 to 2014, 258 patients underwent a Ross procedure and 1444 had a mechanical AVR at a single institution. Patients were matched into 208 pairs through the use of a propensity score. Mean age was 37.2±10.2 years, and 63% were male. Mean follow-up was 14.2±6.5 years.Results:
Overall survival was equivalent (Ross versus AVR: hazard ratio, 0.91, 95% confidence interval, 0.38–2.16; P=0.83), although freedom from cardiac- and valve-related mortality was improved in the Ross group (Ross versus AVR: hazard ratio, 0.22; 95% confidence interval, 0.034–0.86; P=0.03). Freedom from reintervention was equivalent after both procedures (Ross versus AVR: hazard ratio, 1.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.76–4.94; P=0.18). Long-term freedom from stroke or major bleeding was superior after the Ross procedure (Ross versus AVR: hazard ratio, 0.09; 95% confidence interval, 0.02–0.31; P<0.001).Conclusions:
Long-term survival and freedom from reintervention were comparable between the Ross procedure and mechanical AVR. However, the Ross procedure was associated with improved freedom from cardiac- and valve-related mortality and a significant reduction in the incidence of stroke and major bleeding. In specialized centers, the Ross procedure represents an excellent option and should be considered for young and middle-aged adults undergoing AVR.