RESUMEN
The following letter presents an answer of a comment of our work titled "Ross procedure: valve function, clinical outcomes and predictors after 25 years' follow-up," recently published in your journal by Rangwala et al.1 As our colleagues point out, the Ross procedure has excellent survival rates but a significant risk of valve dysfunction and therefore reintervention at follow-up. Although the survival advantage with the Ross procedure appears to be consistent compared with mechanical valve substitutes, this benefit is not as clear compared with biological valve substitutes. However, biological valve substitutes also have significant reintervention rates during follow-up. The different surgical modifications of the Ross procedure have not clearly demonstrated better results in follow-up in terms of autograft reintervention. This procedure can be performed in a medium-volume center with good results as long as adequate patient selection and adequate surgical training are carried out.
