Background: To support decision-making in aortic valve replacement in children and adults, we provide a comprehensive overview of outcome after the Ross procedure. Methods and Results: A systematic search was conducted for publications reporting clinical outcome after the Ross procedure, published between January 1, 2000, and November 22, 2017. Reported event rates and time-to-event data were pooled and entered into a microsimulation model to calculate life expectancy and lifetime event risk. Ninety-nine publications were included (13 129 patients; total follow-up: 93 408 patient-years, pooled mean follow-up: 7.9±5.3 years). Pooled mean age at surgery was 9.4±5.5 years for children and 41.9±11.4 for adults. For children and adults, respectively, pooled early mortality risk was 4.19% (95% CI, 3.21–5.46) and 2.01% (95% CI, 1.44–2.82), late mortality rate was 0.54%/y (95% CI, 0.42–0.70) and 0.59%/y (95% CI, 0.46–0.76), autograft reintervention 1.28%/y (95% CI, 0.99–1.66) and 0.83%/y (95% CI, 0.68–1.01), and right ventricular outflow tract reintervention 1.97%/y (95% CI, 1.64–2.36) and 0.47%/y (95% CI, 0.37–0.59). Pooled thromboembolism and bleeding rates were low and comparable to the general population. Lifetime risks of autograft and right ventricular outflow tract reintervention were, respectively, 94% and 100% for children and 49% and 19% for a 45-year-old. Estimated life expectancy after surgery was 59 years for children (general population: 64 years) and 30 years for a 45 years old (general population: 31 years). Conclusions: Through excellent survival and avoidance of the burden of anticoagulation, the Ross procedure provides a unique opportunity for patients whose preferences do not align with the outcome provided by mechanical valve replacement and for growing children who also benefit from autograft diameter increase along with somatic growth. On the downside, almost all pediatric and many adult Ross patients will require a reintervention in their lifetime.

Background: To support decision-making in aortic valve replacement in nonelderly adults, we aim to provide a comprehensive overview of reported outcome after bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement and to translate this to age-specific patient outcome estimates. Methods and Results: A systematic review was conducted for papers reporting clinical outcome after aortic valve replacement with currently available bioprostheses in patients with a mean age <55 years, published between January 1, 2000, and January 9, 2016. Pooled reported event rates and time-to-event data were pooled and entered into a microsimulation model to calculate life expectancy and lifetime event risk for the ages of 25, 35, 45, and 55 years at surgery. Nineteen publications were included, encompassing a total of 2686 patients with 21 117 patient-years of follow-up (pooled mean follow-up: 7.9±4.2 years). Pooled mean age at surgery was 50.7±11.0 years. Pooled early mortality risk was 3.30% (95% CI, 2.39–4.55), late mortality rate was 2.39%/y (95% CI, 1.13–2.94), reintervention 1.82%/y (95% CI, 1.31–2.52), structural valve deterioration 1.59%/y (95% CI, 1.21–2.10), thromboembolism 0.53%/y (95% CI, 0.42–0.67), bleeding 0.22%/y (95% CI, 0.16–0.32), endocarditis 0.48%/y (95% CI, 0.37–0.62), and 20-year pooled actuarial survival was 58.7% and freedom from reintervention was 29.0%. Median time to structural valve deterioration was 17.3 years and median time to all-cause first reintervention was 16.9 years. For a 45-year-old adult, for example, this translated to a microsimulation-based estimated life expectancy of 21 years (general population: 32 years) and lifetime risk of reintervention of 78%, structural valve deterioration 71%, thromboembolism 12%, bleeding 5%, and endocarditis 9%. Conclusions: Aortic valve replacement with bioprostheses in young adults is associated with high structural valve deterioration and reintervention rates and low, though not absent, hazards of thromboembolism and bleeding. Foremostly, most patients will require one or more reinterventions during their lifetime and survival is impaired in comparison with the age- and sex-matched general population. Prosthesis durability remains the main concern in nonelderly patients.