Dan M Dorobantu1,2,3, Mansour T A Sharabiani4, Demetris Taliotis5, Andrew J Parry5, Robert M R Tulloh2,5, James R Bentham6, Massimo Caputo2,5, Carin van Doorn6, Serban C Stoica2,5. 1. School of Sport and Health Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK. 2. Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK. 3. Department of Cardiology, "Prof. C.C. Iliescu" Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases, Bucharest, Romania. 4. Department of Primary Care & Public Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College of London, London, UK. 5. Departments of Cardiology and Cardiac Surgery, The Heart Institute and Royal Hospital for Children, Bristol, UK. 6. Departments of Cardiology and Cardiac Surgery, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Many adults with repaired tetralogy of Fallot will require a pulmonary valve replacement (PVR), but there is no consensus on the best timing. In this study, we aim to evaluate the impact of age at PVR on outcomes. METHODS: This is a national multicentre retrospective study including all patients >15 years of age with repaired tetralogy of Fallot who underwent their first PVR between 2000 and 2013. The optimal age cut-off was identified using Cox regression and classification and regression tree analysis. RESULTS: A total of 707 patients were included, median age 26 (15-72) years. The mortality rate at 10 years after PVR was 4.2%, and the second PVR rate of 6.8%. Age at PVR of 35 years was identified as the optimal cut-off in relation to late mortality. Patients above 35 years of age had a 5.6 fold risk of death at 10 years compared with those with PVR under 35 years (10.4% vs 1.3%, P < 0.001), more concomitant tricuspid valve repair/replacement (15.1% vs 5.7%, P < 0.001) and surgical arrhythmia treatment (18.4% vs 5.9%, P < 0.001). In those under 50 years, there was an 8.7 fold risk of late death compared with the general population, higher for those with PVR after 35 than those with PVR below 35 years (hazard ratio 9.9 vs 7.4). CONCLUSIONS: Patients above 35 years of age with repaired tetralogy of Fallot have significantly worse mortality after PVR, compared with younger patients and a higher burden of mortality relative to the general population. This suggests that there are still cases where the timing of initial PVR is not optimal, warranting a re-evaluation of criteria for intervention.
OBJECTIVES: Many adults with repaired tetralogy of Fallot will require a pulmonary valve replacement (PVR), but there is no consensus on the best timing. In this study, we aim to evaluate the impact of age at PVR on outcomes. METHODS: This is a national multicentre retrospective study including all patients >15 years of age with repaired tetralogy of Fallot who underwent their first PVR between 2000 and 2013. The optimal age cut-off was identified using Cox regression and classification and regression tree analysis. RESULTS: A total of 707 patients were included, median age 26 (15-72) years. The mortality rate at 10 years after PVR was 4.2%, and the second PVR rate of 6.8%. Age at PVR of 35 years was identified as the optimal cut-off in relation to late mortality. Patients above 35 years of age had a 5.6 fold risk of death at 10 years compared with those with PVR under 35 years (10.4% vs 1.3%, P < 0.001), more concomitant tricuspid valve repair/replacement (15.1% vs 5.7%, P < 0.001) and surgical arrhythmia treatment (18.4% vs 5.9%, P < 0.001). In those under 50 years, there was an 8.7 fold risk of late death compared with the general population, higher for those with PVR after 35 than those with PVR below 35 years (hazard ratio 9.9 vs 7.4). CONCLUSIONS: Patients above 35 years of age with repaired tetralogy of Fallot have significantly worse mortality after PVR, compared with younger patients and a higher burden of mortality relative to the general population. This suggests that there are still cases where the timing of initial PVR is not optimal, warranting a re-evaluation of criteria for intervention.
Authors: S Lucy Roche; Lars Grosse-Wortmann; Mark K Friedberg; Andrew N Redington; Derek Stephens; Paul F Kantor Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 2014-11-22 Impact factor: 5.251
Authors: Tal Geva; Kimberlee Gauvreau; Andrew J Powell; Frank Cecchin; Jonathan Rhodes; Judith Geva; Pedro del Nido Journal: Circulation Date: 2010-09-14 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Roderick W J van Grootel; Annemien E van den Bosch; Vivan J M Baggen; Myrthe E Menting; Sara J Baart; Judith A A E Cuypers; Maarten Witsenburg; Jolien W Roos-Hesselink Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 2019-05-04 Impact factor: 5.251
Authors: Shabana Shahanavaz; Jeremy D Asnes; Jochen Grohmann; Athar M Qureshi; Jonathan J Rome; Daniel Tanase; Matthew A Crystal; Larry A Latson; Brian H Morray; William Hellenbrand; David T Balzer; Marc Gewillig; Jon C Love; Farhouch Berdjis; Matthew J Gillespie; Doff B McElhinney Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2018-08 Impact factor: 6.546
Authors: Alessandra Frigiola; Victor Tsang; Catherine Bull; Louise Coats; Sachin Khambadkone; Graham Derrick; Bryan Mist; Fiona Walker; Carin van Doorn; Philipp Bonhoeffer; Andrew M Taylor Journal: Circulation Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Rachel M Wald; Idith Haber; Ron Wald; Anne Marie Valente; Andrew J Powell; Tal Geva Journal: Circulation Date: 2009-03-02 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Mansour T A Sharabiani; Dan M Dorobantu; Alireza S Mahani; Mark Turner; Andrew J Peter Tometzki; Gianni D Angelini; Andrew J Parry; Massimo Caputo; Serban C Stoica Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2016-06-21 Impact factor: 24.094