Durability of right ventricular conduits in the Ross procedure.

Background: Right ventricular (RV) conduit availability and degeneration are potential limitations of the Ross procedure. Pulmonary homografts are the gold standard, but their limited availability drives the need for alternatives. The aim of this study was to compare results of different RV conduits.
Methods: Between 1995 and 2023, 315 consecutive patients (73% males; mean age, 37 ± 12 years) underwent a Ross procedure using a homograft (n = 211), bovine jugular vein (BJV) (n = 34), or xenograft (n = 70) as the RV conduit. The mean follow-up was 5.7 ± 6.7 years and was 96% complete (1631 patient-years).
Results: Twelve patients (homograft, n = 8; BJV. n = 3; xenograft, n = 1) required RV conduit reintervention, including 4 patients within 4 years (all with homografts). Indications for reintervention were degeneration in 8 patients and active endocarditis in 4 patients. Reinterventions included RV conduit replacement (homograft, n = 3; xenograft, n = 1; BJV, n = 2) and transcatheter valve implantation (homograft n = 5; BJV, n = 1). At 15 years, freedom from RV conduit reintervention was 88%, and freedom from reoperation was 93%. Freedom from reintervention at 15 years was similar in the homograft (89%), BJV (89%), and xenograft (100%) groups (P = .812). Progression of mean RV conduit gradient was lowest for the BJV group (1.45 mm Hg/year) and similar in the homograft (2.6 mm Hg/year) and xenograft (2.9 mm Hg/year) groups. Age at <18 years at surgery (hazard ratio [HR], 1.9; P < .001) was a predictive risk factor for reintervention. There was no difference among the RV conduit groups (HR, 1.198; P = .606).
Conclusions: The incidence of reintervention after 15 years is similar in recipients of homografts, xenografts, and BJV grafts. Interestingly, homografts may fail in the first few years, possibly related to inflammatory phenomena. Thus, the use of xenografts may be an option if homografts are not available.
Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest Statement The authors reported no conflicts of interest. The Journal policy requires editors and reviewers to disclose conflicts of interest and to decline handling or reviewing manuscripts for which they may have a conflict of interest. The editors and reviewers of this article have no conflicts of interest.
(Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)