Use Of Pulmonary Autograft Research Articles

The Ross Operation Over 55 Years Later: Comparing Surgical Techniques and Outcomes.

The Ross procedure is often considered the best option for a small group of patients. Some critics argue that harvesting the pulmonary artery again can cause problems, such as exposing the native pulmonary autograft to systemic pressures and requiring further intervention. However, the pulmonary autograft is a living tissue that can adjust to growing conditions and undergo remodelling. The pathophysiology of living tissue, harvesting techniques, indications for use of pulmonary autograft in aortic valve disease, contraindications, and variations of pulmonary autograft as an aortic conduit are discussed in this seminar. Following recent updates from high-volume centres, the indications, contraindications, techniques, and variations of pulmonary autograft as an aortic conduit and, in the absence of substantial well-designed randomised controlled trials, areas where the Ross procedure needs to be reaffirmed as part of the surgical armamentarium are also discussed. Furthermore, increasing evidence suggests that the Ross procedure produces better long-term results than traditional aortic valve replacement in young and middle-aged adults. To enable cardiologists and surgeons to make appropriate decisions for their patients with aortic valve disease, the author provides a complete review of the most recent published studies on the Ross procedure.

In young patients with rheumatic aortic regurgitation compared to non-rheumatics is a Ross operation associated with increased incidence of autograft failure?

A best evidence topic in cardiac surgery was written, according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was: in young patients with rheumatic aortic regurgitation compared to non-rheumatics is a Ross operation associated with increased incidence of autograft failure? The pulmonary autograft with its inherent advantages of viable autologous transplant, central laminar flow, freedom from prosthetic valve complications, side effects of anticoagulation, and growth potential is considered a well-accepted option for aortic valve replacement in young patients. However, the use of a pulmonary autograft in young patients with rheumatic aortic valve disease is controversial. We analyse existing evidence to determine the suitability of the pulmonary autograft as a substitute for the diseased aortic valve in patients with rheumatic disease. Altogether 901 papers were found using the reported search terms, from which eight represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. In addition, a meta-analysis also superficially addressed this issue. The authors, journal, date and country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes and results of these papers are tabulated. All eight publications were from two institutions with one reporting outcomes for a Ross operation vs. mechanical valve implantation and two compared results of the Ross operation in rheumatic vs. non-rheumatic aortic valve disease. We conclude that the current available evidence suggests that pulmonary autograft is susceptible to rheumatic involvement. Use of pulmonary autograft in young patients (<30 years) with rheumatic aortic regurgitation and concomitant mitral regurgitation requires a cautious approach as there is an impaired autograft durability in this subgroup of patients.

Pulmonary autograft: Should it be used in young patients with rheumatic disease?

Background: Although pulmonary autograft is being increasingly used to replace the diseased aortic valve with excellent long-term results, its use in the population with rheumatiic disease still needs careful evaluation. Patients and methods: From October 1993 through March 1998, 102 patients underwent aortic valve replacement with a pulmonary autograft (Ross procedure). The mean age was 27.9 ± 4.2 years (range, 0.8-56 years). The cause was rheumatic disease in 75 patients (73%), bicuspid aortic valve in 26 patients (26%), and myxomatous aortoarteritis in 1 patient (1%). The root replacement technique was used in all. In addition, 31 patients had 33 associated procedures: mitral valve repair (n = 15 patients), open mitral commissurotomy (n = 15 patients), tricuspid repair (n = 2 patients), and homograft mitral valve replacement (n = 1 patient). Results: Operative mortality was 6.9% (7 patients). Late mortality was 7.8% (8 patients). Follow-up ranged from 1 to 60 months (mean, 25.3 ± 15.4 months) and was 98% complete. Two patients required reoperation for failed mitral valve repair, and 2 other patients underwent reoperation for failure of both the autograft and mitral valve repair. Echocardiographic assessment showed moderate to severe aortic regurgitation in 13 patients, along with thickening of the autograft. All of these patients had rheumatic disease and were young (<30 years). Ten of these patients had undergone associated mitral valve procedure. Morphologic and histopathologic examination of explanted autografts showed features compatible with rheumatic valvulitis. Conclusion: Pulmonary autograft is susceptible to rheumatic involvement. Young age (<30 years) and associated mitral valve disease are significant risk factors for autograft failure in patients with rheumatic disease. Use of pulmonary autograft in this subgroup of patients requires a cautious approach. (J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1999;118:483-91)