Background: We analyzed the outcome of children and young adults (younger than 40 years) with aortic valve disease who underwent allograft or autograft aortic root replacement (ARR) in our institution and evaluated whether there is a preference for either valve substitute. Methods: One-hundred fifty patients younger than 40 years underwent ARR between January 1990 and July 2011. Forty-four patients, aged 18.8 ± 12.4 years, had ARR with allograft conduit (allograft group), whereas 106 patients, aged 17.9 ± 11 years (p = 0.63), had a Ross ARR during the same period of time (autograft group). Echocardiographic data were reviewed to evaluate valve performance. The 2 groups were similar with respect to age, gender, etiology, and previous and concomitant procedures. Results: Operative deaths were 3 in the autograft group. There were 6 late deaths in the autograft group and 5 in the allograft group. Survival was 92% and 84% at 5 and 15 years, respectively, in the allograft group versus 93% and 91% in the autograft group (p = 0.42). Freedom from any type of reintervention and from reoperation on aortic valve were similar (autograft, 64% and 72% versus allograft, 66% and 66%; p = not significant) at 15 years. Freedom from explantation were significantly better for Ross patients (autograft, 82% versus allograft, 66%; p = 0.05). Conclusions: Aortic valve replacement with either the autograft or allograft provides good clinical results in children and young adults during an intermediate duration of observation. Survival early after ARR does not differ depending on the type of prosthesis. In patients with aortic valve disease, autograft and allograft ARR show comparable satisfactory early and long-term results, with the increasing reoperation risk in the second decade after operation remaining a major concern. © 2012 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons.
Ruzmetov, M., Geiss, D. M., Shah, J. J., & Fortuna, R. S. (2012). Autograft or allograft aortic root replacement in children and young adults with aortic valve disease: A single-center comparison. Annals of Thoracic Surgery, 94(5), 1604–1611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2012.05.004