The Ross procedure versus prosthetic and homograft aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2019 Feb 1;55(2):247-255. doi: 10.1093/ejcts/ezy247.

Abstract

Objectives: Young adults undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR) have decreased life expectancy compared to matched controls. The Ross procedure aims to improve valve lifespan while avoiding anticoagulation. We prepared a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the Ross procedure compared to conventional AVR.

Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane CENTRAL for studies evaluating the Ross procedure versus any conventional AVR in adult patients. We performed screening, full-text assessment, risk of bias evaluation and data collection independently and in duplicate. We evaluated the risk of bias with the ROBINS-I and Cochrane tools and quality of evidence with the GRADE framework. We pooled data using the random- and fixed-effects models.

Results: Thirteen observational studies and 2 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified (n = 5346). No observational study was rated as having low risk of bias. The Ross procedure was associated with decreased late mortality in observational and RCT data [mean length of follow-up 2.6 years, relative risk (RR) 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38-0.84, I2 = 58%, very low quality]. The RCT estimate of effect was similar (mean length of follow-up 8.8 years, RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.11-0.96, I2 = 66%, very low quality). No difference was observed in mortality <30 days after surgery. All-site reintervention was similar between groups in cohorts and significantly reduced by the Ross procedure in RCTs (RR 1.41, 95% CI 0.89-2.24, I2 = 55%, very low quality and RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.22-0.78, I2 = 68%, high quality, respectively).

Conclusions: Observational data, with residual confounding, and RCT data suggest a late survival benefit with the Ross procedure with no increased risk of reintervention when compared to conventional AVR. Considering the quality of available evidence and limited follow-up, additional high-quality randomized studies are required to strengthen these findings.

Systematic review prospero registration: CRD42016052512.

Publication types

  • Meta-Analysis
  • Systematic Review

MeSH terms

  • Adolescent
  • Adult
  • Aged
  • Allografts* / statistics & numerical data
  • Allografts* / surgery
  • Aortic Valve / surgery*
  • Bioprosthesis* / adverse effects
  • Bioprosthesis* / statistics & numerical data
  • Child
  • Child, Preschool
  • Heart Valve Diseases / surgery
  • Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation* / adverse effects
  • Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation* / instrumentation
  • Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation* / mortality
  • Heart Valve Prosthesis* / adverse effects
  • Heart Valve Prosthesis* / statistics & numerical data
  • Humans
  • Infant
  • Middle Aged
  • Postoperative Complications
  • Young Adult