Autograft remodeling after the Ross procedure by cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging: Aortic stenosis versus insufficiency.

BACKGROUND: Studies suggest that patients undergoing the Ross procedure for aortic insufficiency are at greater risk of autograft dilatation than those with aortic stenosis. By using a tailored Ross technique to mitigate autograft dilatation in patients with aortic insufficiency, we aimed to compare the biomechanical and morphologic remodeling of the autograft at 1 year between patients with aortic insufficiency and patients with aortic stenosis. METHODS: A total of 210 patients underwent a Ross procedure (2011-2016). Of those, 86 patients (mean age 43 ± 13 years; 32% were female) completed preoperative and postoperative cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging. A total of 71 studies were suitable for analysis: 41 patients with aortic stenosis and 30 patients with aortic insufficiency. Nine healthy adults were used as controls. Autograft root dimensions, individual sinus volumes, and distensibility were measured using cardiovascular magnetic resonance. RESULTS: At 1 year, there was no difference in autograft root dimensions between patients with aortic stenosis (mean annulus 25.1 ± 3.1 mm and sinus diameters 35 ± 4.1 mm) and patients with aortic insufficiency (26.6 ± 3 mm and 37.1 ± 3.5 mm; P = .12 and .06, respectively). Relative sinus of Valsalva volumes were symmetrical in the aortic stenosis (right 34.8% ± 4%, left 33.7% ± 3.5%, noncoronary 31.4% ± 3.2%) and aortic insufficiency groups (34.8% ± 3.9%, 33.8% ± 2.8%, 31.3% ± 3.7%, P = .85, .92, and .82), and similar to those of healthy adults. Aortic root distensibility was reduced in both groups compared with healthy adults (P = .003), but was similar between aortic stenosis (3.12 ± 1.58 × 10-3 mm Hg-1) and aortic insufficiency (3.04 ± 1.15 × 10-3 mm Hg-1; P = .9). CONCLUSIONS: Using a tailored technique, there were no differences in the morphologic or biomechanical remodeling of the autograft root 1 year after the Ross procedure between patients with aortic stenosis and patients with aortic insufficiency. However, autograft roots are stiffer than native aortic roots.

Impact of a tailored surgical approach on autograft root dimensions in patients undergoing the Ross procedure for aortic regurgitation†.

OBJECTIVES: The Ross procedure in patients with aortic regurgitation (AR) has been associated with increased autograft dilatation and late reintervention. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of a tailored approach aimed at mitigating that risk on early changes in autograft root dimensions following the Ross procedure in patients with AR. METHODS: From 2011 to 2018, 241 consecutive patients underwent a Ross procedure with >1 year of follow-up [46 (7) years]. Aortic root dimensions were prospectively measured on serial echocardiograms. Patients with aortic stenosis group (n = 171; 71%) were compared to those with AR or mixed aortic disease (AR group) (n = 70; 29%). Mean length of follow-up was 29 ± 11 months (100% complete). Changes in aortic dimensions were analysed using mixed-effect models. RESULTS: At 4 years, mean indexed diameters of the annulus, sinuses of Valsalva and the sinotubular junction in the AR group were 12.3 (0.2) mm/m2, 20.0 (0.4) mm/m2 and 16.3 (0.9) mm/m2, respectively, vs 11.9 (0.2), 18.4 (0.3) and 15.5 (0.5) in the aortic stenosis group. Overall, there were no significant differences in the rates of autograft annulus, sinuses of Valsalva and sinotubular junction dimension changes between the aortic stenosis and AR groups up to 4 years after surgery (P = 0.55, P = 0.12, P = 0.59 and P = 0.48, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Use of a tailored surgical approach, combined with a strict blood pressure control, appears to mitigate clinically significant early dilatation of the autograft root following a Ross procedure in patients with AR. Further follow-up is needed to determine if this will translate into a lower incidence of long-term reintervention.

Expanding Eligibility for the Ross Procedure: A Reasonable Proposition?

BACKGROUND: Although the Ross procedure offers potential benefits in young adults, technical complexity represents a significant limitation. Therefore, the safety of expanding its use in more complex settings is uncertain. The aim of this study was to compare early outcomes of standard isolated Ross procedures vs expanding elgibility to higher-risk clinical settings. METHODS: From 2011 to 2016, 261 patients (46 ± 12 years) underwent Ross procedures in 2 centres. Patients were divided into 2 groups: standard Ross (n = 166) and expanded eligibility Ross (n = 95). Inclusion criteria for the expanded eligibility group were previous cardiac surgery, acute aortic valve endocarditis, severely impaired left ventricular (LV) function and patients undergoing concomitant procedures. All data were prospectively collected and are 100% complete. RESULTS: Hospital mortality was 0% in the standard group (0/166) vs 2% in the expanded eligibility group (2/95) (P = 0.13). Sixteen patients (10%) developed acute renal injury in the standard group vs 13 (14%) patients in the expanded eligibility group (P = 0.31). There were no postoperative myocardial infarctions, no neurological events, and no infectious complications. Median intensive care unit (ICU) stay in the standard group was 2 vs 3 days in the expanded eligibility group (P = 0.004), whereas median hospital stay was 6 vs 7 days, respectively (range: 3-19 days) (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Aside from longer ICU and hospital lengths of stay after the Ross procedure in higher-risk clinical scenarios, perioperative mortality and morbidity is similar to standard Ross procedures. Expanding the use of the Ross operation in young adults is a safe alternative in centres of expertise.

Reimplantation versus remodelling with ring annuloplasty: comparison of mid-term outcomes after valve-sparing aortic root replacement.

OBJECTIVES: Remodelling with extra-aortic ring annuloplasty has emerged as an alternative approach to root reimplantation. However, no studies have yet compared outcomes between procedures. The aim of this study was to compare mid-term outcomes in patients undergoing reimplantation versus remodelling with extra-aortic annuloplasty. METHODS: From 2001 to 2017, 142 patients underwent root remodelling with extra-aortic annuloplasty (n = 83, 48 ± 13 years) or a reimplantation technique (n = 59, 48 ± 12 years) at the Montreal Heart Institute. No differences were observed in the incidence of connective tissue disease (24% vs 29%, P = 0.9) or preoperative aortic insufficiency ≥3 (37% vs 23%, P = 0.24). However, in the remodelling group, there were more bicuspid aortic valves (31% vs 9%; P < 0.01), and the mean preoperative aortic annulus diameter was larger (27.2 ± 3.6 mm vs 25.6 ± 2.4 mm; P = 0.01). The mean follow-up duration was 3.9 years (100% complete). RESULTS: There were no hospital deaths and 5 late deaths. At 5 years, overall survival was similar in both groups (100%, P = 0.98). Similarly, 5-year freedom from aortic valve reoperation was equivalent (97 ± 2% in both groups, P = 0.95). Furthermore, 5-year survival free from aortic insufficiency ≥2 or reoperation was 84 ± 5% in the remodelling with annuloplasty group vs 83 ± 6% in the reimplantation group (P = 0.62). The mean annular diameter was 24.3 ± 0.5 mm at 5 years vs 23.6 ± 0.3 mm at discharge in the remodelling group (P = 0.28) and 24.4 ± 0.6 mm vs 23.2 ± 0.3 mm, respectively, in the reimplantation group (P = 0.1). CONCLUSIONS: Despite a higher prevalence of bicuspid aortic valves and larger aortic annular diameters, mid-term outcomes after remodelling with extra-aortic annuloplasty and reimplantation are comparable. Extra-aortic ring annuloplasty is effective at stabilizing annular dimensions.