Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-05-23T15:50:10.366Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of early-stage stenosis and regurgitation results among patients who underwent aortic valve repair

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 June 2022

Berra Zumrut Tan-Recep Open the ORCID record for Berra Zumrut Tan-Recep [Opens in a new window] ,
Ali Can Hatemi ,
Yasemin Yavuz ,
Ayse Inci Yildirim Open the ORCID record for Ayse Inci Yildirim [Opens in a new window]  and
Hakan Ceyran
Berra Zumrut Tan-Recep*
Affiliation:
Department of Pediatric Cardiac Surgery, Kartal Kosuyolu High Education and Training Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
Ali Can Hatemi
Affiliation:
Department of Pediatric Cardiac Surgery, Kartal Kosuyolu High Education and Training Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
Yasemin Yavuz
Affiliation:
Department of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, Kartal Kosuyolu High Education and Training Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
Ayse Inci Yildirim
Affiliation:
Department of Pediatric Cardiology, Kartal Kosuyolu High Education and Training Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
Hakan Ceyran
Affiliation:
Department of Pediatric Cardiac Surgery, Kartal Kosuyolu High Education and Training Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
*
Author for correspondence: B.Z. Tan-Recep, Department of Pediatric Cardiac Surgery, Kartal Kosuyolu High Education and Training Hospital, Cevizli 2, Denizer Caddesi, Cevizli Kavsagı, 34865 Kartal, Istanbul, Turkey. Tel: +905379504824. E-mail: bzumrut.tan@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Introduction:

This study aimed to analyse the results of paediatric aortic valve repairs in our institution.

Method:

The data of 57 patients under 18 years of age who underwent aortic valve repair between 2014 and 2019 were retrospectively analysed. Early postoperative reoperation and hospital mortality rates were evaluated based on the ages of the patients, their preoperative diagnoses, and the surgical techniques used. Survival curves for groups of patients were calculated by Kaplan–Meier analysis.

Results:

The rate of reoperation was 14% (n = 8), and there were no significant differences regarding valve pathologies and preoperative diagnoses (p > 0.05). Among the repair techniques, tricuspidisation was considered to be a risk factor for reoperation (p < 0.05). Augmentation, the material used (0.1 PTFE or pericardium), and the number of cusps were not found to have significant effects on reoperation or mortality. The mean follow-up period was 29.86 ± 21.30 months. The survival rates of the patients were 88%, 100%, and 88.2% for those with aortic stenosis, aortic insufficiency, and mixed disease, respectively, and no significant difference was found when these rates were evaluated with the log-rank test (p > 0.05). The mortality rate was 8.8% (n = 5), and undergoing surgery before the age of 1 year was found to be significant in terms of mortality (p = 0.032, p < 0.05). The bicuspid aortic valve group had the lowest mortality risk, while the Shone complex group had the highest.

Conclusion:

With its acceptable reoperation and mortality rates, aortic valve repair should be the first choice of treatment in the paediatric age group. Early results were satisfactory in all groups.

Keywords

Aortic insufficiencyaortic stenosisaortic valve repair
Type
Original Article
Information
Cardiology in the Young , Volume 33 , Issue 6 , June 2023 , pp. 904 - 909
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alsoufi, B, Manlhiot, C, McCrindle, BW, et al. Aortic and mitral valve replacement in children: is there any role for biologic and bioprosthetic substitutes? Eur J Cardiothoracic Surg 2009; 36: 84–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Alsoufi, B, Al-Halees, Z, Manlhiot, C, et al. Mechanical valves ver- sus the Ross procedure for aortic valve replacement in children: propensity-adjusted comparison of long-term outcomes. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2009; 137: 362–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mokhles, MM, Rizopoulos, D, Andrinopoulou, ER, et al. Autograft and pulmonary allograft performance in the second post-operative decade after the Ross procedure: insights from the rotterdam prospective cohort study. Eur Heart J 2012; 33: 2213–2224.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elkins, RC, Thompson, DM, Lane, MM, Elkins, CC, Peyton, MD. Ross operation: 16-year experience. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2008; 136: 623–630.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hanke, T, Stierle, U, Boehm, JO, et al. Autograft regurgitation and aortic root dimensions after the ross procedure: the German Ross Registry experience. Circulation 2007; 116: I251–I258.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
d’Udekem, Y. Aortic valve repair in children. Ann Cardiothorac Surg 2013; 2: 100–104.Google ScholarPubMed
le Polain de Waroux, JB, Pouleur, AC, Goffinet, C, et al. Functional anatomy of aortic regurgitation: accuracy, prediction of surgical repairability, and outcome implications of transesophageal echocardiography. Circulation 2007; 116: I264—9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mastrobuoni, S, El Khoury, G. Aortic valve repair and Ross operation in children: the importance of patient selection and surgical technique. Eur J Cardio-Thorac Surg 2016; 49: 892–893.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cuttone, F, Alacoque, X, Leobon, B, et al. Aortic valve recontruction in children: a new string to our bow. Arc Cardiovasc Dis 2019; 112: 653–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
d’Udekem, Y, Siddiqui, J, Seaman, CS, et al. Long-term results strategy of aortic valve repair in the pediatric population. J Thorac Cardivasc Surg 2013; 46: 461–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, U, Feldner, SK, Hofmann, C, et al. Two decades of experience with root remodeling and valve repair for bicuspid aortic valves. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2016; 153: S65–S71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siddiqui, J, Brizard, CP, Konstantinov, IE, et al. Outcomes after operations for bicuspid aortic valve disease in pediatric population. Ann Thorac Surg 2013; 96: 2175–2183.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nosal, M, Poruban, R, Valentik, P, et al. Initial experience with polytetrafluoroethylene leaflet extensions for aortic valve repair. Eur J Thorac Surg 2012; 41: 1255–1257.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Poncelet, AJ, El Khoury, G, De Kerchove, L, et al. Aortic valve repair in the pediatric population: insight from a 38-year single-centre experience. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2017; 51: 43–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stern, KW, White, MT, Verghese, GR, Del Nido, PJ, Geva, T. Intraoperative echocardiography for congenital aortic valve repair: predictors of early reoperation. Ann Thorac Surg 2015; 100: 678–685.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kandakure, P, Prior, N, Soda, G, et al. Outcom of a repair-oriented strategy fort he aortic valve in children. World J Pediatric Congenit Heart Surg 2014; 5: 191–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicholson, GT, Kelleman, MS, De la Uz, CM, et al. Late outcomes in children Shone’s complex: a single center, 20-year experience. Cardiol Young 2017; 27: 697–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brauner, RA, Laks, H, Drinkwater, DCJ, et al. Multiple left heart obstructions (Shone’s anomaly) with mitral valve involvement: long-term surgical outcome. Ann Thorac Surg 1997; 64: 721–729.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, JW, Ruzmetov, M, Vijay, P, et al. Operative results and outcomes in children with Shone’s anomaly. Ann Thorac Surg 2005; 79: 1358–1365.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elmahrouk, AF, Ismail, MF, Arafat, AA, et al. Outcomes of biventricular repair for Shone’s complex. J Card Surg 2021; 36: 12–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed