Ross Confers More Favorable Left Ventricular Remodeling Compared With Mechanical Aortic Valve Replacement.

Garrett H Markham, John W Brown, Chelsea D Wenos, Morten O Jensen, Hanna K Jensen, Larry W Markham, Jeremy L Herrmann
{"title":"Ross Confers More Favorable Left Ventricular Remodeling Compared With Mechanical Aortic Valve Replacement.","authors":"Garrett H Markham, John W Brown, Chelsea D Wenos, Morten O Jensen, Hanna K Jensen, Larry W Markham, Jeremy L Herrmann","doi":"10.1177/21501351241266122","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Aortic valve disease results in left ventricular (LV) dilation and/or hypertrophy. Valve intervention may improve, but not normalize flow dynamics. We hypothesized that LV remodeling would be more favorable following the Ross procedure versus mechanical aortic valve replacement (mAVR). <b>Methods:</b> Patients who were 18 to 50 years of age and underwent Ross or mAVR from 2000 to 2016 at a single institution were retrospectively reviewed. Propensity score matching was performed and yielded 27 well-matched pairs. Demographics and echocardiographic variables of LV morphology and wall thickness were collected. Those with > mild residual valve disease were excluded. Primary endpoints included LV morphology. <i>T</i> test and Fisher exact test analysis were used for statistical comparison. <b>Results:</b> Average age at operation (Ross 35.3 ± 10.2 vs mAVR 37.3 ± 8.9 years) did not differ. Indication for operation was similar between groups. Preoperative echocardiographic variables did not differ. At average follow-up duration (Ross 7.9 ± 2.4 vs mAVR 7.3 ± 2.4 years), wall thickness was significantly smaller for Ross compared with mAVR (<i>P</i> = .00715). Only 4/27 (15%) of mAVR patients had normalized LV parameters compared with 16/27 (59%) of Ross patients (<i>P</i> = .000813). Residual hypertrophy was the most common long-term abnormality for mAVR. <b>Conclusion:</b> Following aortic valve replacement with the Ross procedure or mechanical aortic valve prosthesis, the Ross conferred more favorable LV remodeling compared with mAVR. Future directions include analyzing longer follow-up to determine if patterns persist and the impact on cardiac morbidity and mortality.</p>","PeriodicalId":94270,"journal":{"name":"World journal for pediatric & congenital heart surgery","volume":" ","pages":"801-805"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World journal for pediatric & congenital heart surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/21501351241266122","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Aortic valve disease results in left ventricular (LV) dilation and/or hypertrophy. Valve intervention may improve, but not normalize flow dynamics. We hypothesized that LV remodeling would be more favorable following the Ross procedure versus mechanical aortic valve replacement (mAVR). Methods: Patients who were 18 to 50 years of age and underwent Ross or mAVR from 2000 to 2016 at a single institution were retrospectively reviewed. Propensity score matching was performed and yielded 27 well-matched pairs. Demographics and echocardiographic variables of LV morphology and wall thickness were collected. Those with > mild residual valve disease were excluded. Primary endpoints included LV morphology. T test and Fisher exact test analysis were used for statistical comparison. Results: Average age at operation (Ross 35.3 ± 10.2 vs mAVR 37.3 ± 8.9 years) did not differ. Indication for operation was similar between groups. Preoperative echocardiographic variables did not differ. At average follow-up duration (Ross 7.9 ± 2.4 vs mAVR 7.3 ± 2.4 years), wall thickness was significantly smaller for Ross compared with mAVR (P = .00715). Only 4/27 (15%) of mAVR patients had normalized LV parameters compared with 16/27 (59%) of Ross patients (P = .000813). Residual hypertrophy was the most common long-term abnormality for mAVR. Conclusion: Following aortic valve replacement with the Ross procedure or mechanical aortic valve prosthesis, the Ross conferred more favorable LV remodeling compared with mAVR. Future directions include analyzing longer follow-up to determine if patterns persist and the impact on cardiac morbidity and mortality.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
与机械主动脉瓣置换术相比,Ross 能带来更有利的左心室重塑。
背景:主动脉瓣疾病会导致左心室(LV)扩张和/或肥厚。瓣膜介入治疗可改善血流动力学,但不能使其恢复正常。我们假设,Ross 手术与机械主动脉瓣置换术(mAVR)相比,左心室重塑效果更佳。方法:回顾性研究了 2000 年至 2016 年在一家医疗机构接受 Ross 或 mAVR 手术的 18 至 50 岁患者。进行倾向评分匹配后,得出了 27 对匹配度较高的患者。研究人员收集了人口统计学数据以及左心室形态和室壁厚度的超声心动图变量。排除了残余瓣膜病变>轻度的患者。主要终点包括左心室形态。统计比较采用 T 检验和费舍尔精确检验分析。结果手术时的平均年龄(Ross 35.3 ± 10.2 岁 vs mAVR 37.3 ± 8.9 岁)没有差异。两组的手术指征相似。术前超声心动图变量无差异。在平均随访时间内(Ross 7.9 ± 2.4 年 vs mAVR 7.3 ± 2.4 年),Ross 的室壁厚度明显小于 mAVR(P = .00715)。在 mAVR 患者中,只有 4/27 例(15%)患者的左心室参数恢复正常,而在 Ross 患者中,有 16/27 例(59%)患者的左心室参数恢复正常(P = .000813)。残余肥厚是 mAVR 最常见的长期异常。结论:采用 Ross 手术或机械主动脉瓣置换术进行主动脉瓣置换术后,Ross 术与 mAVR 术相比更有利于左心室重塑。未来的发展方向包括分析更长的随访时间,以确定模式是否持续存在,以及对心脏病发病率和死亡率的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Timing the Repair in Truncus Arteriosus: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis with Reconstructed Time-to-Event Data Comparing Staged Repair and Primary Correction. An Innovative Hybrid Process for Realistic Three-Dimensional Heart Modeling and Surgical Simulation of Tetralogy of Fallot. Unplanned Readmissions due to Pleural Effusion Following the Fontan Operation. The Potent Complement Stimulus of Sanguineous Versus Crystalloid Cardiopulmonary Bypass Prime during Pediatric Cardiac Surgery. Risk Factors of Prolonged Mechanical Ventilation Following Pulmonary Artery Banding in Children With Single Ventricle Physiology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1