Sarah S Pickard1,2, John B Wong3, Emily M Bucholz1,2, Jane W Newburger1,2, Wayne Tworetzky1,2, Terra Lafranchi1, Carol B Benson4, Louise E Wilkins-Haug5,6, Diego Porras1,2, Ryan Callahan1,2, Kevin G Friedman1,2. 1. Department of Cardiology, Boston Children's Hospital, MA (S.S.P., E.M.B., J.W.N., W.T., T.L., D.P., R.C., K.G.F.). 2. Departments of Pediatrics (S.S.P., E.B., J.W.N., W.T., D.P., R.C., K.G.F.), Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. 3. Division of Clinical Decision Making, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA (J.B.W.). 4. Departments of Radiology (C.B.B.), Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA. 5. Obstetrics and Gynecology (L.E.W.-H.), Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA. 6. Obstetrics and Gynecology, (L.E.W.-H.), Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Fetal aortic valvuloplasty (FAV) may prevent progression of midgestation aortic stenosis to hypoplastic left heart syndrome. However, FAV has well-established risks, and its survival benefit remains unknown. Our primary aim was to determine whether FAV for midgestation aortic stenosis increases survival from fetal diagnosis to age 6 years. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a retrospective analysis of 143 fetuses who underwent FAV from 2000 to 2017 and a secondary analysis of the Pediatric Heart Network Single Ventricle Reconstruction trial. Using these results, we developed a decision model to estimate probability of transplant-free survival from fetal diagnosis to age 6 years and postnatal restricted mean transplant-free survival time. FAV was technically successful in 84% of 143 fetuses with fetal demise in 8%. Biventricular circulation was achieved in 50% of 111 live-born infants with successful FAV but in only 16% of the 19 patients with unsuccessful FAV. The model projected overlapping probabilities of transplant-free survival to age 6 years at 75% (95% CI, 67%-82%) with FAV versus 72% (95% CI, 61%-82%) with expectant fetal management, resulting in a restricted mean transplant-free survival time benefit of 1.2 months. When limiting analyses to the improved FAV experience since 2009 to reflect current practice, (probability of technical success [94%], fetal demise [4%], and biventricular circulation [66%]), the model projected that FAV increased the probability of survival to age 6 years to 82% (95% CI, 73%-89%). Expectant management is favored if risk of fetal demise exceeded 12% or probability of biventricular circulation fell below 26%, but FAV remained favored over plausible recent range of technical success. CONCLUSIONS: Our model suggests that FAV provides a modest, medium-term survival benefit over expectant fetal management. Appropriate patient selection and low risk of fetal demise with FAV are critical factors for obtaining a survival benefit.
BACKGROUND: Fetal aortic valvuloplasty (FAV) may prevent progression of midgestation aortic stenosis to hypoplastic left heart syndrome. However, FAV has well-established risks, and its survival benefit remains unknown. Our primary aim was to determine whether FAV for midgestation aortic stenosis increases survival from fetal diagnosis to age 6 years. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a retrospective analysis of 143 fetuses who underwent FAV from 2000 to 2017 and a secondary analysis of the Pediatric Heart Network Single Ventricle Reconstruction trial. Using these results, we developed a decision model to estimate probability of transplant-free survival from fetal diagnosis to age 6 years and postnatal restricted mean transplant-free survival time. FAV was technically successful in 84% of 143 fetuses with fetal demise in 8%. Biventricular circulation was achieved in 50% of 111 live-born infants with successful FAV but in only 16% of the 19 patients with unsuccessful FAV. The model projected overlapping probabilities of transplant-free survival to age 6 years at 75% (95% CI, 67%-82%) with FAV versus 72% (95% CI, 61%-82%) with expectant fetal management, resulting in a restricted mean transplant-free survival time benefit of 1.2 months. When limiting analyses to the improved FAV experience since 2009 to reflect current practice, (probability of technical success [94%], fetal demise [4%], and biventricular circulation [66%]), the model projected that FAV increased the probability of survival to age 6 years to 82% (95% CI, 73%-89%). Expectant management is favored if risk of fetal demise exceeded 12% or probability of biventricular circulation fell below 26%, but FAV remained favored over plausible recent range of technical success. CONCLUSIONS: Our model suggests that FAV provides a modest, medium-term survival benefit over expectant fetal management. Appropriate patient selection and low risk of fetal demise with FAV are critical factors for obtaining a survival benefit.
Entities:
Keywords:
fetal heart; hypoplastic left heart syndrome; infant; probability
Authors: L E Wilkins-Haug; W Tworetzky; C B Benson; A C Marshall; R W Jennings; J E Lock Journal: Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 7.299
Authors: Anita J Moon-Grady; Shaine A Morris; Michael Belfort; Ramen Chmait; Joanna Dangel; Roland Devlieger; Stephen Emery; Michele Frommelt; Alberto Galindo; Sarah Gelehrter; Ulrich Gembruch; Sofia Grinenco; Mounira Habli; Ulrike Herberg; Edgar Jaeggi; Mark Kilby; Eftichia Kontopoulos; Pablo Marantz; Owen Miller; Lucas Otaño; Carlos Pedra; Simone Pedra; Jay Pruetz; Ruben Quintero; Greg Ryan; Gurleen Sharland; John Simpson; Emanuel Vlastos; Wayne Tworetzky; Louise Wilkins-Haug; Dick Oepkes Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2015-07-28 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: K G Friedman; L A Sleeper; L R Freud; A C Marshall; M E Godfrey; M Drogosz; T Lafranchi; C B Benson; L E Wilkins-Haug; W Tworetzky Journal: Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol Date: 2018-07-04 Impact factor: 7.299
Authors: Lindsay R Freud; Doff B McElhinney; Audrey C Marshall; Gerald R Marx; Kevin G Friedman; Pedro J del Nido; Sitaram M Emani; Terra Lafranchi; Virginia Silva; Louise E Wilkins-Haug; Carol B Benson; James E Lock; Wayne Tworetzky Journal: Circulation Date: 2014-07-22 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Lihui Zhao; Brian Claggett; Lu Tian; Hajime Uno; Marc A Pfeffer; Scott D Solomon; Lorenzo Trippa; L J Wei Journal: Biometrics Date: 2015-08-24 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: Jane W Newburger; Lynn A Sleeper; Peter C Frommelt; Gail D Pearson; William T Mahle; Shan Chen; Carolyn Dunbar-Masterson; Seema Mital; Ismee A Williams; Nancy S Ghanayem; Caren S Goldberg; Jeffrey P Jacobs; Catherine D Krawczeski; Alan B Lewis; Sara K Pasquali; Christian Pizarro; Peter J Gruber; Andrew M Atz; Svetlana Khaikin; J William Gaynor; Richard G Ohye Journal: Circulation Date: 2014-04-04 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: A Tulzer; W Arzt; R Gitter; E Sames-Dolzer; M Kreuzer; R Mair; G Tulzer Journal: Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol Date: 2022-04-11 Impact factor: 8.678
Authors: Andreas Tulzer; James C Huhta; Julian Hochpoechler; Kathrin Holzer; Thomas Karas; David Kielmayer; Gerald Tulzer Journal: Front Pediatr Date: 2022-07-08 Impact factor: 3.569