E Dean McKenzie1, Muhammad S Khan2, Thomas W Dietzman3, Francisco A Guzmán-Pruneda2, Andres X Samayoa2, Aimee Liou4, Jeffrey S Heinle2, Charles D Fraser2. 1. Michael E. DeBakey Department of Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Tex; Department of Congenital Heart Surgery, Texas Children's Hospital, Houston, Tex. Electronic address: edmckenz@texaschildrens.org. 2. Michael E. DeBakey Department of Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Tex; Department of Congenital Heart Surgery, Texas Children's Hospital, Houston, Tex. 3. Department of Congenital Heart Surgery, Texas Children's Hospital, Houston, Tex. 4. Department of Pediatric Cardiology, Baylor College of Medicine and Texas Children's Hospital, Houston, Tex.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with right heart obstructive lesions develop residual or recurrent right ventricle outflow tract pathology as a result of native or implanted pulmonary valve (PV) dysfunction. Until recently, the standard of care has been surgical placement of a PV or valved right ventricle to pulmonary artery conduit. Catheter-based options are being increasingly applied in patients with PV dysfunction. The purpose of our study was to evaluate outcomes of surgical pulmonary valve/conduit replacement (PVR) at a large pediatric hospital to provide contemporary benchmark data for comparison with developing technologies. METHODS: Retrospective review of patients undergoing PVR not associated with complex concomitant procedures from July 1995 to December 2010 was completed. Inclusion criteria were designed to generally match those applied to patients promoted for catheter-based valve replacement based on age and weight (age≥5 years and weight≥30 kg). RESULTS: There were 148 PVRs with all patients having undergone ≥1 previous interventions (tetralogy of Fallot [53%] and pulmonary atresia [17%]). Surgical indications were PV insufficiency (60%), PV stenosis (26%), and both (13%). Valves used included bioprosthetic (n=108; 73%) and homografts (n=40; 27%). Time-to-extubation, intensive care unit stay, and hospital length of stay were <1 day (interquartile range, 0-1 day), 2 days (interquartile range, 1-2 days), and 5 days (interquartile range, 4-6 days), respectively, with no hospital deaths. Freedom from PV reintervention at 1, 3, and 5 years was 99%, 99%, and 94%, respectively. Multivariable analysis showed age<13 years (P=.003), and smaller valve size (P=.025) were associated with increased risk of valve reintervention. Patient survival at follow-up (mean, 5.0±3.9 years) was 99%. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical PVR is safe with low in-hospital and midterm follow-up mortality and reoperation rates. These outcomes provide a useful benchmark for treatment strategy comparisons.
BACKGROUND:Patients with right heart obstructive lesions develop residual or recurrent right ventricle outflow tract pathology as a result of native or implanted pulmonary valve (PV) dysfunction. Until recently, the standard of care has been surgical placement of a PV or valved right ventricle to pulmonary artery conduit. Catheter-based options are being increasingly applied in patients with PV dysfunction. The purpose of our study was to evaluate outcomes of surgical pulmonary valve/conduit replacement (PVR) at a large pediatric hospital to provide contemporary benchmark data for comparison with developing technologies. METHODS: Retrospective review of patients undergoing PVR not associated with complex concomitant procedures from July 1995 to December 2010 was completed. Inclusion criteria were designed to generally match those applied to patients promoted for catheter-based valve replacement based on age and weight (age≥5 years and weight≥30 kg). RESULTS: There were 148 PVRs with all patients having undergone ≥1 previous interventions (tetralogy of Fallot [53%] and pulmonary atresia [17%]). Surgical indications were PV insufficiency (60%), PV stenosis (26%), and both (13%). Valves used included bioprosthetic (n=108; 73%) and homografts (n=40; 27%). Time-to-extubation, intensive care unit stay, and hospital length of stay were <1 day (interquartile range, 0-1 day), 2 days (interquartile range, 1-2 days), and 5 days (interquartile range, 4-6 days), respectively, with no hospital deaths. Freedom from PV reintervention at 1, 3, and 5 years was 99%, 99%, and 94%, respectively. Multivariable analysis showed age<13 years (P=.003), and smaller valve size (P=.025) were associated with increased risk of valve reintervention. Patient survival at follow-up (mean, 5.0±3.9 years) was 99%. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical PVR is safe with low in-hospital and midterm follow-up mortality and reoperation rates. These outcomes provide a useful benchmark for treatment strategy comparisons.
Authors: Wendy F Li; Heidi Pollard; Mohsen Karimi; Jeremy D Asnes; William E Hellenbrand; Veronika Shabanova; Constance G Weismann Journal: Congenit Heart Dis Date: 2017-11-17 Impact factor: 2.007
Authors: Kathleen Gilbert; Nickolas Forsch; Sanjeet Hegde; Charlene Mauger; Jeffrey H Omens; James C Perry; Beau Pontré; Avan Suinesiaputra; Alistair A Young; Andrew D McCulloch Journal: J Cardiovasc Transl Res Date: 2018-01-02 Impact factor: 4.132
Authors: Dalin Tang; Heng Zuo; Chun Yang; Zheyang Wu; Xueying Huang; Rahul H Rathod; Alexander Tang; Kristen L Billiar; Tal Geva Journal: Mol Cell Biomech Date: 2017
Authors: Dalin Tang; Chun Yang; Pedro J Del Nido; Heng Zuo; Rahul H Rathod; Xueying Huang; Vasu Gooty; Alexander Tang; Kristen L Billiar; Zheyang Wu; Tal Geva Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2015-10-03 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Franziska Schlegel; Aida Salameh; Katja Oelmann; Michelle Halling; Stefan Dhein; Friedrich W Mohr; Pascal M Dohmen Journal: Med Sci Monit Basic Res Date: 2015-06-24
Authors: Dalin Tang; Pedro J Del Nido; Chun Yang; Heng Zuo; Xueying Huang; Rahul H Rathod; Vasu Gooty; Alexander Tang; Zheyang Wu; Kristen L Billiar; Tal Geva Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-09-14 Impact factor: 3.240