Dissemination and implementation analysis of the Ross procedure in adults: time to update the guidelines?
Tóm tắt
The science of dissemination and implementation (D&I) aims to improve the quality and effectiveness of care by addressing the challenges of incorporating research and evidence-based practice into routine clinical practice. This lens of D&I has challenged the interpretation and incorporation of data, noting that failure of a given therapy may not reflect lack of efficacy, but instead reflect an imperfect implementation. The aim of this manuscript is to review the influence of the Ross procedure’s historical context on its D&I. A contextual baseline of the Ross procedure was defined from the procedure’s original description in the literature to major publications since the 2017 valvular heart disease guidelines. D&I evaluation was conducted using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), using constructs from each of the five respective domains to define the main determinants. Each of the five CFIR domains appears to be correlated with a factor influencing the Ross procedure’s varied history of enthusiasm and acceptance. The complex nature of Ross required adaptation for optimization, with a strong correlation of center volume on outcomes that were not considered in non-contemporary studies. Outcomes later published from those studies influenced social and cultural contexts within the aortic surgery community, and led to further organizational uncertainty, resulting in slow guideline incorporation. The D&I of the Ross procedure was a result of inadequate appreciation of technical complexity, effect of patient selection, and complex aortic surgery experience, resulting in dismissal of an efficacious procedure due to a misunderstanding of effectiveness.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Eccles MP, Mittman BS (2006) Welcome to Implementation Science. Implementation Sci 1:1. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-1-1
Glasgow RE, Vinson C, Chambers D, Khoury MJ, Kaplan RM, Hunter C (2012) National Institutes of Health approaches to dissemination and implementation science: current and future directions. Am J Public Health 102(7):1274–1281. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2012.300755
Heiden BT, Tetteh E, Robbins KJ et al (2022) Dissemination and Implementation Science in Cardiothoracic Surgery: A Review and Case Study. Ann Thorac Surg 114(2):373–382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2021.08.007
Proctor E, Silmere H, Raghavan R et al (2011) Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Adm Policy Ment Health 38(2):65–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7
Proctor EK, Landsverk J, Aarons G, Chambers D, Glisson C, Mittman B (2009) Implementation research in mental health services: an emerging science with conceptual, methodological, and training challenges. Adm Policy Ment Health 36(1):24–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-008-0197-4
Mazine A, Rocha RV, El-Hamamsy I et al (2018) Ross Procedure vs Mechanical Aortic Valve Replacement in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Cardiol 3(10):978–987. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamacardio.2018.2946
Reece TB, Welke KF, O'Brien S, Grau-Sepulveda MV, Grover FL, Gammie JS (2014) Rethinking the ross procedure in adults. Ann Thorac Surg 97(1):175–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2013.07.036
Klieverik LM, Takkenberg JJ, Bekkers JA, Roos-Hesselink JW, Witsenburg M, Bogers AJ (2007) The Ross operation: a Trojan horse? Eur Heart J 28(16):1993–2000. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehl550
Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC (2009) Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci 4:50. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-4-50
Ross DN (1967) Replacement of aortic and mitral valves with a pulmonary autograft. Lancet 2(7523):956–958. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(67)90794-5
Rabkin-Aikawa E, Aikawa M, Farber M et al (2004) Clinical pulmonary autograft valves: pathologic evidence of adaptive remodeling in the aortic site. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 128(4):552–561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2004.04.016
Stelzer P, Jones DJ, Elkins RC (1989) Aortic root replacement with pulmonary autograft. Circulation. 80(5 Pt 2):III209–III213
David TE, Omran A, Webb G, Rakowski H, Armstrong S, Sun Z (1996) Geometric mismatch of the aortic and pulmonary roots causes aortic insufficiency after the Ross procedure. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 112(5):1231–1239. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5223(96)70136-8
Mokhles MM, Rizopoulos D, Andrinopoulou ER et al (2012) Autograft and pulmonary allograft performance in the second post-operative decade after the Ross procedure: insights from the Rotterdam Prospective Cohort Study. Eur Heart J 33(17):2213–2224. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehs173
Takkenberg JJ, Klieverik LM, Schoof PH et al (2009) The Ross procedure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Circulation 119(2):222–228. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.726349
Hokken RB, Takkenberg JJ, van Herwerden LA, Roelandt JR, Bogers AJ (2003) Excessive pulmonary autograft dilatation causes important aortic regurgitation. Heart 89(8):933–934. https://doi.org/10.1136/heart.89.8.933
Mazine A, El-Hamamsy I (2020) Procedures and Outcomes of Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Adults. Cardiol Clin 38(1):89–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccl.2019.09.012
Hughes GC, Zhao Y, Rankin JS et al (2013) Effects of institutional volumes on operative outcomes for aortic root replacement in North America. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 145(1):166–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2011.10.094
Nishimura RA, Otto CM, Bonow RO et al (2017) 2017 AHA/ACC Focused Update of the 2014 AHA/ACC Guideline for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol 70(2):252–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2017.03.011
Baumgartner H, Falk V, Bax JJ et al (2017) 2017 ESC/EACTS Guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease. Eur Heart J 38(36):2739–2791. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehx391
Hammermeister K, Sethi GK, Henderson WG, Grover FL, Oprian C, Rahimtoola SH (2000) Outcomes 15 years after valve replacement with a mechanical versus a bioprosthetic valve: final report of the Veterans Affairs randomized trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 36(4):1152–1158. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0735-1097(00)00834-2
Stassano P, Di Tommaso L, Monaco M et al (2009) Aortic valve replacement: a prospective randomized evaluation of mechanical versus biological valves in patients ages 55 to 70 years. J Am Coll Cardiol 54(20):1862–1868. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2009.07.032
Oxenham H, Bloomfield P, Wheatley DJ et al (2003) Twenty year comparison of a Bjork-Shiley mechanical heart valve with porcine bioprostheses. Heart 89(7):715–721. https://doi.org/10.1136/heart.89.7.715
Appoo JJ, Bozinovski J, Chu MW et al (2016) Canadian Cardiovascular Society/Canadian Society of Cardiac Surgeons/Canadian Society for Vascular Surgery Joint Position Statement on Open and Endovascular Surgery for Thoracic Aortic Disease. Can J Cardiol 32(6):703–713. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjca.2015.12.0
Goldstone AB, Chiu P, Baiocchi M et al (2017) Mechanical or Biologic Prostheses for Aortic-Valve and Mitral-Valve Replacement. N Engl J Med 377(19):1847–1857. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa161379237
Mazine A, David TE, Rao V et al (2016) Long-Term Outcomes of the Ross Procedure Versus Mechanical Aortic Valve Replacement: Propensity-Matched Cohort Study. Circulation 134(8):576–585. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.116.022800
Buratto E, Shi WY, Wynne R et al (2018) Improved Survival After the Ross Procedure Compared With Mechanical Aortic Valve Replacement. J Am Coll Cardiol 71(12):1337–1344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2018.01.048
Gofus J, Fila P, Drabkova S et al (2022) Ross procedure provides survival benefit over mechanical valve in adults: a propensity-matched nationwide analysis. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 61(6):1357–1365. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezac013
El-Hamamsy I, Toyoda N, Itagaki S et al (2022) Propensity-Matched Comparison of the Ross Procedure and Prosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement in Adults. J Am Coll Cardiol 79(8):805–815. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2021.11.057
Mastrobuoni S, de Kerchove L, Solari S et al (2016) The Ross procedure in young adults: over 20 years of experience in our Institution. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 49(2):507–513. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezv053
Sievers HH, Stierle U, Charitos EI et al (2016) A multicentre evaluation of the autograft procedure for young patients undergoing aortic valve replacement: update on the German Ross Registry. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 49(1):212–218. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezv001
Sievers HH, Stierle U, Petersen M et al (2018) Valve performance classification in 630 subcoronary Ross patients over 22 years. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 156(1):79–86.e2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2018.03.015
David TE, Ouzounian M, David CM, Lafreniere-Roula M, Manlhiot C (2019) Late results of the Ross procedure. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 157(1):201–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2018.06.037
Pergola V, Di Salvo G, Fadel B et al (2020) The long term results of the Ross procedure: The importance of candidate selection. Int J Cardiol 320:35–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2020.07.009
Gartner Hype Cycle. Interpreting technology hype. https://www.gartner.com/en/research/methodologies/gartner-hype-cycle. Accessed 8 Nov 2022.
Bouhout I, Ghoneim A, Poirier N et al (2017) Impact of the Learning Curve on Early Outcomes Following the Ross Procedure. Can J Cardiol 33(4):493–500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjca.2016.11.014
Mazine A, El-Hamamsy I, Verma S et al (2018) Ross Procedure in Adults for Cardiologists and Cardiac Surgeons: JACC State-of-the-Art Review. J Am Coll Cardiol 72(22):2761–2777. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2018.08.2200