Literature DB >> 29923134

Comparison of Balloon Dilatation and Surgical Valvuloplasty in Non-critical Congenital Aortic Valvular Stenosis at Long-Term Follow-Up.

Sezen Ugan Atik1, Ayşe Güler Eroğlu2, Betül Çinar3, Murat Tuğberk Bakar4, İrfan Levent Saltik2.   

Abstract

The two main modalities used for congenital aortic valvular stenosis (AVS) treatment are balloon aortic valve dilatation (BAD) and surgical aortic valvuloplasty (SAV). This study evaluates residual and recurrent stenosis, aortic regurgitation (AR) development/progression, reintervention rates, and the risk factors associated with this end point in patients with non-critical congenital AVS who underwent BAD or SAV after up to 18 years of follow-up. From 1990 to 2017, 70 consecutive interventions were performed in patients with AVS, and 61 were included in this study (33 BADs and 28 SAVs). There were no significant differences in age, sex distribution, PSIG, and AR frequency between the BAD and SAV groups. Bicuspid valve morphology was more common in the BAD group than the SAV group. There was no statistically significant difference between PSIGs and AR development or progression after intervention at the immediate postoperative echocardiography of patients who underwent BAD or SAV (p = 0.82 vs. p = 0.29). Patients were followed 6.9 ± 5.1 years after intervention. The follow-up period in the SAV group was longer than that of the BAD group (9.5 ± 5.4 vs. 5.5 ± 4.4 years, p = 0.003). There was no statistically significant difference in the last echocardiographic PSIG between patients who underwent SAV or BAD (51.1 ± 33.5 vs. 57.3 ± 35.1, p = 0.659). Freedom from reintervention was 81.3% at 5 years and 57.5% at 10 years in the BAD group and 95.5% at 5 years and 81.8% at 10 years in the SAV group, respectively (p = 0.044). There was no difference in postprocedural immediate PSIG and last PSIG at follow-up and the development/progression of AR between patients who were treated with BAD versus SAV. However, long-term results of SAV were superior to those of BAD, with a somewhat prolonged reintervention interval.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Aortic valvular stenosis; Balloon aortic valve dilatation; Echocardiography; Surgical aortic valvuloplasty

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29923134     DOI: 10.1007/s00246-018-1929-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pediatr Cardiol        ISSN: 0172-0643            Impact factor:   1.655


  32 in total

1.  The direct vision correction of calcific aortic stenosis by means of a pump-oxygenator and retrograde coronary sinus perfusion.

Authors:  C W LILLEHEI; R A DEWALL; V L GOTT; R L VARCO
Journal:  Dis Chest       Date:  1956-08

2.  Surgical valvuloplasty versus balloon aortic dilation for congenital aortic stenosis: are evidence-based outcomes relevant?

Authors:  John W Brown; Mark D Rodefeld; Mark Ruzmetov; Osama Eltayeb; Okan Yurdakok; Mark W Turrentine
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2012-04-25       Impact factor: 4.330

Review 3.  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.

Authors:  Rick A Nishimura; Catherine M Otto; Robert O Bonow; Blase A Carabello; John P Erwin; Lee A Fleisher; Hani Jneid; Michael J Mack; Christopher J McLeod; Patrick T O'Gara; Vera H Rigolin; Thoralf M Sundt; Annemarie Thompson
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2017-03-15       Impact factor: 29.690

4.  Balloon aortic valvuloplasty for congenital aortic stenosis using the femoral and the carotid artery approach: a 16-year experience from a single center.

Authors:  Raul I Rossi; João L L Manica; Ricardo Petraco; Mônica Scott; Luciane Piazza; Paulo M Machado
Journal:  Catheter Cardiovasc Interv       Date:  2011-03-16       Impact factor: 2.692

5.  Congenital heart disease among 815,569 children born between 1980 and 1990 and their 15-year survival: a prospective Bohemia survival study.

Authors:  M Samánek; M Vorísková
Journal:  Pediatr Cardiol       Date:  1999 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 1.655

6.  Are outcomes of surgical versus transcatheter balloon valvotomy equivalent in neonatal critical aortic stenosis?

Authors:  B W McCrindle; E H Blackstone; W G Williams; R Sittiwangkul; T L Spray; A Azakie; R A Jonas
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2001-09-18       Impact factor: 29.690

7.  Balloon dilatation of aortic stenosis in infants younger than 6 months of age: intermediate outcome.

Authors:  H A Latiff; G F Sholler; S Cooper
Journal:  Pediatr Cardiol       Date:  2002-10-10       Impact factor: 1.655

8.  Guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: executive summary. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee on Management of Patients with Valvular Heart Disease).

Authors:  R O Bonow; B Carabello; A C de Leon; L H Edmunds; B J Fedderly; M D Freed; W H Gaasch; C R McKay; R A Nishimura; P T O'Gara; R A O'Rourke; S H Rahimtoola; J L Ritchie; M D Cheitlin; K A Eagle; T J Gardner; A Garson; R J Gibbons; R O Russell; T J Ryan; S C Smith
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  1998-11-03       Impact factor: 29.690

9.  Management of valvar aortic stenosis in children.

Authors:  J D R Thomson
Journal:  Heart       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 5.994

Review 10.  Surgical Valvotomy Versus Balloon Valvuloplasty for Congenital Aortic Valve Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Garick D Hill; Salil Ginde; Rodrigo Rios; Peter C Frommelt; Kevin D Hill
Journal:  J Am Heart Assoc       Date:  2016-08-08       Impact factor: 5.501

View more
  2 in total

1.  Results of balloon and surgical valvuloplasty in congenital aortic valve stenosis: A 19-year, single-center, retrospective study.

Authors:  Kahraman Yakut; Niyazi Kürşad Tokel; Birgül Varan; İlkay Erdoğan; Murat Özkan
Journal:  Turk Gogus Kalp Damar Cerrahisi Derg       Date:  2021-04-26       Impact factor: 0.332

Review 2.  Bicuspid Aortic Valve in Children and Adolescents: A Comprehensive Review.

Authors:  Gaia Spaziani; Francesca Girolami; Luigi Arcieri; Giovanni Battista Calabri; Giulio Porcedda; Chiara Di Filippo; Francesca Chiara Surace; Marco Pozzi; Silvia Favilli
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2022-07-20
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.