Hemodynamic Performance Following the Ross Operation: Comparison of Two Different Techniques Jürgen O. Böhm1, Cornelius A. Botha1, Wolfgang Hemmer1,
Claudia Schmidtke2, J. F. Matthias Bechtel2, Ulrich Stierle2, Joachim-Gerd
Rein1, Hans H. Sievers2 |
|||||||
Background and aim of the study: The Ross operation
as aortic valve replacement has undergone technical evolution. Originally
described as a subcoronary implant, the full-root replacement technique
is now more common worldwide. It remains unclear which of the two techniques
has the better results. Hence, the hemodynamic performances of the two
implantation methods, as applied by two experienced centers, were compared
as part of the German Ross Registry. |
11.7 ± 6.8 mmHg for Groups 1 and 2 (p <0.05) respectively,
and the indexed EOA with regard to the homograft was 1.08
± 0.49 cm2/m2 and 1.26 ± 0.50 cm2/m2 (p <0.05). Autograft
insufficiency grade >I was present in 1.5% (2/132) of Group 1 and 2.8%
(7/249) of Group 2 patients. Pulmonary insufficiency grade >I was 17.4%
(23/132) for Group 1 and 4.8% (12/249) for Group 2 (p <0.05). Conclusion: Although both groups enjoyed excellent hemodynamics in the mid-term, the root replacement technique had the advantage of larger annulus diameters and greater aortic EOA. Clinically relevant autograft regurgitation in both groups was gratifyingly rare, and seemed to be independent of surgical technique. Long-term durability of the more demanding subcoronary technique versus the problems of larger dimensions of the sinus of Valsalva and sinotubular junction in the free-root technique, remains to be proven. Apparent differences in pulmonary homograft hemodynamics can most likely be explained by surgical differences, younger patients in Group 1, and by homograft variation. |
||||||
|
|||||||