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.