Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35224059›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2022

Understanding Pulmonary Autograft Remodeling After the Ross Procedure: Stick to the Facts.

Lucas Van Hoof, Peter Verbrugghe, Elizabeth A V Jones, Jay D Humphrey, Stefan Janssens, Nele Famaey, Filip Rega

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Lucas Van HoofDepartment of Cardiac Surgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Peter VerbruggheDepartment of Cardiac Surgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Elizabeth A V JonesCenter for Molecular and Vascular Biology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Jay D HumphreyDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Yale University, New Haven, CT, United States.
Stefan JanssensDepartment of Cardiology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Nele FamaeyBiomechanics Section, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Filip RegaDepartment of Cardiac Surgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Ross, or pulmonary autograft, procedure presents a fascinating mechanobiological scenario. Due to the common embryological origin of the aortic and pulmonary root, the conotruncus, several authors have hypothesized that a pulmonary autograft has the innate potential to remodel into an aortic phenotype once exposed to systemic conditions. Most of our understanding of pulmonary autograft mechanobiology stems from the remodeling observed in the arterial wall, rather than the valve, simply because there have been many opportunities to study the walls of dilated autografts explanted at reoperation. While previous histological studies provided important clues on autograft adaptation, a comprehensive understanding of its determinants and underlying mechanisms is needed so that the Ross procedure can become a widely accepted aortic valve substitute in select patients. It is clear that protecting the autograft during the early adaptation phase is crucial to avoid initiating a sequence of pathological remodeling. External support in the freestanding Ross procedure should aim to prevent dilatation while simultaneously promoting remodeling, rather than preventing dilatation at the cost of vascular atrophy. To define the optimal mechanical properties and geometry for external support, the ideal conditions for autograft remodeling and the timeline of mechanical adaptation must be determined. We aimed to rigorously review pulmonary autograft remodeling after the Ross procedure. Starting from the developmental, microstructural and biomechanical differences between the pulmonary artery and aorta, we review autograft mechanobiology in relation to distinct clinical failure mechanisms while aiming to identify unmet clinical needs, gaps in current knowledge and areas for further research. By correlating clinical and experimental observations of autograft remodeling with established principles in cardiovascular mechanobiology, we aim to present an up-to-date overview of all factors involved in extracellular matrix remodeling, their interactions and potential underlying molecular mechanisms.

Indexed as

external supportextracellular matrixmechanobiologypulmonary autograftremodelingRoss procedure

Identifiers

PMID35224059
PMCPMC8865563

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.