Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Contemporarily modified Ross procedure continues to deliver excellent outcomes and remains part of the treatment strategy for aortic valve disease in the young adult population. The aim of this study was to assess whether Ross procedure carried out as a second or subsequent intervention for aortic valve disease carries similar risk and long-term benefit, when compared to Ross procedure for the first-time aortic valve replacement.METHODS: A total of 158 patients aged 16-60 years from a single congenital cardiac centre between 1997 and 2020 were included. The sample was split into 2 subgroups, based on the history of previous aortic valve interventions prior to the Ross procedure.Primary outcomes were defined as survival and pulmonary autograft failure. Coarsened exact matching was used to balance for covariates.RESULTS: A total of 103 patients underwent primary Ross and 55 underwent secondary Ross with a mean follow-up of 7.8 years. Twentytwo patients underwent 28 reoperations during follow-up. Forty-nine well-matched pairs were obtained through matching. Freedom from pulmonary autograft failure at 10 years was 84.5% in the primary group vs 100% in the secondary group (P = 0.021). Five-and ten-year survival were identical, 97.5% in the primary group vs 95.6% in the secondary group (P = 0.53). Male sex and era were found to be predictors of neoaortic root dilatation. CONCLUSIONS: The lower incidence of graft failure seen in secondary Ross could justify a stepwise approach to aortic valve intervention. Ross procedure delivers excellent outcomes in the adult population with no difference in survival for primary or secondary Ross.