title: Prospective evaluation of aortic valve replacement in young adults and middle-aged patients: mechanical prosthesis versus pulmonary autograft.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  The best option for aortic valve replacement (AVR) in young adults and middle-aged patients remains controversial. A longitudinal comparison between the Ross procedure (RP) and mechanical prosthesis (MP) was conducted in this group of patients.
  
  
  METHODS
  Between January 1997 and January 2003, 125 consecutive patients (age range: 20-50 years) were submitted for AVR; 62 patients (mean age 37.73+/-7.28 years) were included in the MP group, and 63 (mean age 35.33+/-7.63 years) in the RP group. Gender, etiology, NYHA functional class and other preoperative data were comparable between the two groups.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The operative mortality was four (6.5%) in the MP group, and one (1.6%) in the RP group (p = NS). The postoperative complication rate was similar in both groups. Two RO patients required early autograft replacement due to severe regurgitation. There were no late deaths during the follow up period. In the MP group, three patients (4.8%) suffered major bleeding, three (4.8%) were diagnosed with prosthetic endocarditis (one required reoperation), and three (4.8%) suffered valve- or coumarin-related thromboembolic complications. All RP patients were free from bleeding, thromboembolic, or infectious complications, but three suffered severe pulmonary homograft stenosis (one re-replacement, one Palmaz stent, and one under clinical surveillance). The combined freedom from death or major complications was 64.72+/-4.3% in the MP group, and 87.92+/-9.65% in the RP group (p = 0.068).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Intraoperative and early postoperative morbidity and mortality rates were similar among RP and MP patients, despite a steep learning curve during the early RP cases. Although the follow up was limited, and homograft-related morbidity was seen in the RP group, the overall five-year major complication rate supported use of the pulmonary autograft for AVR in patients aged between 20 and 50 years.
authors.affiliation: Cardiovascular Surgery Department, Regional Tissue Bank, Hospital Universitario Reina Sofía, Córdoba, Spain.
authors.forename: Manuel
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Concha
authors.forename: Pedro J
authors.initials: PJ
authors.lastname: Aranda
authors.forename: Jaime
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Casares
authors.forename: Carlos
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Merino
authors.forename: Pedro
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Alados
authors.forename: Ignacio
authors.initials: I
authors.lastname: Muñoz
authors.forename: Rafael
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Villalba
authors.forename: Javier
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Ariza
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D001021:Aortic Valve / Q000601:surgery*; D004452:Echocardiography; D005112:Extracorporeal Circulation; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006350:Heart Valve Prosthesis; D019918:Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000379:methods* / Q000401:mortality; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D011183:Postoperative Complications; D011446:Prospective Studies; D011474:Prosthesis Design; D011664:Pulmonary Valve / Q000637:transplantation*; D013997:Time Factors; D014182:Transplantation, Autologous; D016896:Treatment Outcome