Abstract
BackgroundThe choice of aortic valve replacement needs to be decided in an interdisciplinary approach and together with the patients and their families regarding the need for re-operation and risks accompanying anticoagulation. We report long-term outcomes after different AVR options.MethodsA chart review of patients aged < 18 years at time of surgery, who had undergone AVR from May 1985 until April 2020 was conducted. Contraindications for Ross procedure, which is performed since 1991 at the center were reviewed in the observed non-Ross AVR cohort. The study endpoints were compared between the mechanical AVR and the biological AVR cohort.ResultsFrom May 1985 to April 2020 fifty-five patients received sixty AVRs: 33 mechanical AVRs and 27 biological AVRs. In over half of the fifty-three AVRs performed after 1991 (58.5%; 31/53) a contraindication for Ross procedure was present. Early mortality was 5% (3/60). All early deaths occurred in patients aged < 1 year at time of surgery. Two late deaths occurred and survival was 94.5% ± 3.1% at 10 years and 86.4% ± 6.2% at 30 years. Freedom from aortic valve re-operation was higher (p < 0.001) in the mechanical AVR than in the biological AVR cohort with 95.2% ± 4.6% and 33.6% ± 13.4% freedom from re-operation at 10 years respectively.ConclusionsRe-operation was less frequent in the mechanical AVR cohort than in the biological AVR cohort. For mechanical AVR, the risk for thromboembolic and bleeding events was considerable with a composite linearized event rate per valve-year of 3.2%.
Highlights
The choice of aortic valve replacement needs to be decided in an interdisciplinary approach and together with the patients and their families regarding the need for re-operation and risks accompanying anticoagulation
We reviewed the contraindications for Ross procedure in the observed non-Ross Aortic valve replacement (AVR) cohort and report on outcomes after mechanical, bio-prosthetic and homograft AVR in pediatric patients
The biological AVR group consisted of aortic homografts or prosthetic bioprostheses
Summary
The choice of aortic valve replacement needs to be decided in an interdisciplinary approach and together with the patients and their families regarding the need for re-operation and risks accompanying anticoagulation. We report long-term outcomes after different AVR options. Despite the encouraging results with aortic valve reconstruction, aortic valve replacement (AVR) might be required in pediatric patients with significant valve destruction after failed-repairs or interventions [1, 2]. Aortic homografts offer an option for patients, who need more complex reconstruction of the aortic root and serves small children and infants. In recent years decellularized homografts were introduced showing promising results, in pediatric patients [9, 10]. We reviewed the contraindications for Ross procedure in the observed non-Ross AVR cohort and report on outcomes after mechanical, bio-prosthetic and homograft AVR in pediatric patients
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.