• Reilly D Hobbs, Megan L Schultz, Megan L Loney, Sonaal Verma, Julia Xiong, Richard G Ohye, Edward Bove, and Ming-Sing Si.
• Section of Pediatric Cardiovascular Surgery, Department of Cardiac Surgery, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Mich; Section of Pediatric Cardiac Surgery, Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Primary Children's Hospital, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah.
• J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2023 Jan 1; 165 (1): 251259251-259.

ObjectivesThe Ross procedure is a preferred treatment for infants and children with aortic valve disease. Progressive neoaortic root dilation and neoaortic insufficiency can occur after the Ross procedure, and because of the young age of these patients, valve-sparing aortic root replacement procedures have advantages compared with the Bentall procedure. The aim of this study is to describe our experience with different techniques of aortic valve-sparing root replacement in this unique cohort of patients.MethodsPatients undergoing valve-sparing aortic root replacement with a history of the Ross procedure between January 2001 and March 2021 were identified. A retrospective chart review was performed, and clinical characteristics of these patients were analyzed. The results of different types of valve-sparing aortic root replacement were also compared.ResultsForty-two patients who had previously undergone a Ross procedure in childhood presented for reintervention for neoaortic root or valve pathology. Seventeen of these patients were considered for valve-sparing aortic root replacement but underwent bioprosthetic or mechanical valve replacement, and 25 patients underwent successful valve-sparing aortic root replacement. Patients who underwent valve-sparing aortic root replacement received a traditional aortic root remodeling procedure with or without suture annuloplasty (Yacoub technique, group 1, n = 7), an aortic root reimplantation procedure (David technique, group 2, n = 11), or a modified root remodeling procedure that also used a geometric annuloplasty ring (group 3, n = 7). Patient demographics and comorbidities were similar between groups. Mean follow-up for these 3 cohorts was 14 years, 4 years, and 1 year, respectively. Overall survival was good, with 1 early death due to hemorrhage in group 2 and 1 death due to malignancy in group 1. Eight patients (7 in group 1; 1 in group 2) required subsequent aortic valve replacements due to neoaortic insufficiency, whereas none in group 3 have required any reintervention. Overall, patients requiring valve replacement after valve-sparing aortic root replacement had lower grades of preoperative neoaortic insufficiency and higher grades of postoperative neoaortic insufficiency. Greater than mild postoperative neoaortic insufficiency was associated with the need for subsequent neoaortic valve replacement.ConclusionsValve-sparing aortic root replacement is safe in patients with a prior Ross procedure. Reimplantation offers superior durability compared with the traditional remodeling procedure. Greater than mild neoaortic insufficiency on postoperative echocardiogram should prompt additional attempts at valve repair. A modified remodeling procedure with geometric ring annuloplasty that is personalized to the patient's individual anatomy is safe with good short-term results, but longer follow-up is needed.Copyright © 2022 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

18 keywords...

hide…