Aortic stenosis of the neonate: A single-center experience

Abstract

ObjectivesBecause data for neonates are limited, optimal management of critical aortic stenosis remains controversial (balloon valvotomy [BV] or open valvoplasty [OV]). In a center with balanced experience in both methods, we hypothesized that OV can provide a better individualized approach than blunt BV and better serve long-term outcomes. MethodsA retrospective review of data and follow-up (survival, freedom from operation/replacement) of all neonates, suitable for biventricular repair, undergoing aortic valve procedure (1989-2015), was performed. ResultsOne hundred three patients were concomitantly treated (BV [n = 51], OV [n = 52). Median age was 8 days, median aortic annulus Z-score was −1.3 for BV (range, −3.9 to 2.0) and OV (−3.9 to 3.2) groups. Operative mortality after BV or OV was 8% (n = 4) and 4% (n = 2), respectively. With a 13-year median follow-up, 10-year freedom from operation was 36% and 66% after BV or OV, respectively. Valve replacement was ultimately required in 32 patients (n = 20 [39%] in the BV group; n = 12 [23%] in the OV group) within a 5.9-year median time. After OV, tricuspid arrangement of the repaired aortic valve provided a 10-year freedom from operation and replacement of 87% and 95%, respectively. In multivariate analysis, associated left heart malformations, BV, nontricuspid geometry, and inadequate post procedural result were predictive of operation and replacement. ConclusionsIn neonates with critical aortic stenosis, both methods (BV and OV) offer excellent survival benefit. OV significantly minimizes the need for operation, whereas BV did not postpone age of replacement. Clearly superior results are achieved with OV when a post repair tricuspid arrangement is obtained.