Search

Objective: The ideal valve substitute for surgical intervention of congenital aortic valve disease in children remains unclear. Data on outcomes beyond 10-15 years after valve replacement are limited but important for evaluating substitute longevity. We aimed to describe up to 25-year death/cardiac transplant by type of valve substitute and assess the potential impact of treatment centre. Our hypothesis was that patients with pulmonic valve autograft would have better survival than mechanical prosthetic., Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study from the Pediatric Cardiac Care Consortium, a multi-institutional US-based registry of paediatric cardiac interventions, linked with the National Death Index and United Network for Organ Sharing through 2019. Children (0-20 years old) receiving aortic valve replacement (AVR) from 1982 to 2003 were identified. Kaplan-Meier transplant-free survival was calculated, and Cox proportional hazard models estimated hazard ratios for mechanical AVR (M-AVR) versus pulmonic valve autograft., Results: Among 911 children, the median age at AVR was 13.4 years (IQR=8.4-16.5) and 73% were male. There were 10 cardiac transplants and 153 deaths, 5 after transplant. The 25-year transplant-free survival post AVR was 87.1% for autograft vs 76.2% for M-AVR and 72.0% for tissue (bioprosthetic or homograft). After adjustment, M-AVR remained related to increased mortality/transplant versus autograft (HR=1.9, 95% CI=1.1 to 3.4). Surprisingly, survival for patients with M-AVR, but not autograft, was lower for those treated in centres with higher in-hospital mortality., Conclusion: Pulmonic valve autograft provides the best long-term outcomes for children with aortic valve disease, but AVR results may depend on a centre's experience or patient selection., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: Conotruncal anomalies can develop aortopathy and/or aortic valve (AV) disease and AV replacement (AVR) is occasionally needed. We report long-term results and examine factors affecting survival following AVR in this group., Methods: We queried the Pediatric Cardiac Care Consortium (PCCC, US database for interventions for congenital heart diseases) to identify patients with repaired conotruncal anomalies and AVR. Long-term outcomes were provided by the PCCC, the US National Death Index, and Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network. Competing risks analysis examined outcomes following AVR (death/transplantation, reoperation) and multivariable regression analysis assessed significant factors., Results: One hundred six children with repaired conotruncal anomalies underwent AVR (1982-2003). Underlying anomaly was truncus (n = 40), d-transposition (n = 22), type-B interrupted arch (n = 16), double-outlet right ventricle (n = 12), pulmonary atresia with ventricular septal defect (n = 9), tetralogy of Fallot (n = 6), corrected transposition (n = 1). 18 (17%) had prior aortic valvuloplasty (surgical = 12, percutaneous = 6). Median age at AVR was 6.9 years (interquartile range = 2.5-12.4). AV pathophysiology was regurgitation (n = 83, 78%), stenosis (n = 9, 9%), and mixed (n = 14, 15%). AVR type was mechanical (n = 72, 68%), homograft (n = 21, 20%), and Ross (n = 13, 12%). Operative mortality was 13(12%). Infant age at AVR was risk factor (odds ratio = 55, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 6-539, P  = .0006). On competing risks analysis, five years after AVR, 6% died or received transplantation, 20% had reoperation. Twenty-five years transplant-free survival was 53%. Factors associated with death after hospital discharge included mitral surgery (hazards ratio [HR] = 11, 95% CI = 3-39, P  = .0002), underlying defect (HR = 2, 95% CI = 1-5, P  = .446). Twenty years transplant-free survival in conotruncal anomalies group was inferior to matched children undergoing AVR for congenital non-conotruncal disease (61% vs 82%, P  = .0012)., Conclusions: Long-term survival following AVR in children with conotruncal anomalies is inferior to that of isolated congenital AV disease and is linked to an underlying cardiac defect. Although valve type was not associated with survival, infant age was a risk factor for operative mortality. Continuous attrition and high reoperation warrant vigilant monitoring.

Background: Aortic valve replacement in young children is associated with technical difficulties and potential morbidity. In contrast to the versatile Ross operation, mechanical prostheses (MP) are uncommonly used., Methods: We examined transplant-free survival and cardiac reoperation among 124 young children (aged 1-6 years) who underwent the Ross operation (n = 84) or MP (n = 40) for congenital disease (1982-2003) using the Pediatric Cardiac Care Consortium database. We explored variables influencing outcomes., Results: Children who received MP were operated in an earlier era and were more likely to have aortic regurgitation, conotruncal abnormalities, prior aortic valve surgery, and to need Konno annular enlargement. Although no significant differences were found in hospital mortality (1.2% vs 5.0%, P = .24) or 15-year transplant-free survival (94.1% vs 87.5%, P = .16) between Ross and MP recipients, survival diverged with later follow-up (91.3% vs 68.9%, respectively, at 25 years; P = .01). On multivariable regression analysis the association of MP use and transplant-free survival changed over time (hazard ratios, 0.8 [95% confidence interval, 0.1-4.4; P = .78] vs 6.0 [95% confidence interval, 0.6-63.1; P = .13], respectively) before and after 17 years. Cumulative incidence of cardiac reoperation at 10 years was 37.7% and 53.6% after the Ross procedure and MP, respectively (P = .05). The most common reoperation after the Ross procedure was conduit replacement and pacemaker ± automated internal cardiac defibrillator and after MP was pacemaker ± automated internal cardiac defibrillator and redo aortic valve replacement., Conclusions: Over the study period there was a trend for increased Ross utilization. Interestingly MP use was associated with comparable operative mortality and survival up to 17 years, albeit with higher need for redo aortic valve replacement. On longer follow-up survival diverged with increased attrition in the MP group, likely because of late valve- and reoperation-related complications., (Copyright © 2022 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Mitral valve anomalies in children are rare but frequently severe, recalcitrant, and not often amenable to primary repair, necessitating mechanical mitral valve replacement (M-MVR). This study examined outcomes of a cohort undergoing a first M-MVR at age younger than 21 years., Methods: We queried the Pediatric Cardiac Care Consortium, a multi-institutional United States-based cardiac intervention registry, for patients undergoing first M-MVR for 2-ventricle congenital heart disease. Survival and transplant status through 2014 were obtained from Pediatric Cardiac Care Consortium and linkage with the National Death Index and the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network., Results: We identified 441 patients (median age, 4.3 years; interquartile range, 1.3 to 10.1 years) meeting study criteria. The commonest disease necessitating M-MVR was atrioventricular canal (44.3%). Early mortality (death <90 days after M-MVR) was 11.1%; there was increased risk of early death if age at M-MVR was younger than 2 years (odds ratio, 7.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1 to 56.6) and with concurrent other mechanical valve placement (odds ratio, 8.5; 95% CI, 2.0 to 35.6). In those surviving more than 90 days after M-MVR, transplant-free survival was 76% at 20 years of follow-up (median follow-up, 16.6 years; interquartile range, 11.9 to 21.3 years). Adjusted analysis in those who survived more than 90 days showed elevated risk of death/transplant for boys (hazard ratio, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.0 to 2.3), age at M-MVR younger than 2 years (10-year survival: hazard ratio, 4.3; 95% CI, 1.2 to 15.1), and nonbileaflet prosthesis placement (hazard ratio, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.3 to 4.3)., Conclusions: M-MVR is a viable strategy in children with unrepairable mitral valve disease. Age younger than 2 years at the first M-MVR is associated with significant early risk of death and poorer long-term survival., (Copyright © 2019 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Prosthesis survival, growth, and functional status after initial mechanical mitral valve replacement (MVR) in children <5 years of age are poorly defined., Methods and Results: The experience of the Pediatric Cardiac Care Consortium (45 centers, 1982 to 1999), which included 102 survivors after initial MVR, was analyzed. Median follow-up: 6.0 years (interquartile range: 3.0 to 10.6 years; 96% complete). Twenty-nine survivors had undergone a second MVR at an interval of 4.8+/-3.8 years after initial MVR. Reasons for second MVR were prosthetic valve stenosis 24 (83%), thrombosis 4 (14%), and endocarditis 1 (3%). For those who had second MVR, prosthesis sizes were: first MVR 19+/-2 mm and second MVR 22+/-3 mm, and their body weight increased from 7.4+/-2.8 kg to 16.8+/-10.5 kg. To identify risk factors for having a second MVR, the 29 second MVR survivors were compared with the 73 who did not have a second MVR on first-MVR demographic and perioperative variables. By univariate analysis, patients with shorter prosthesis survival were younger, weighed less, had smaller prostheses, greater ratio of prosthesis size:body weight, were less likely to have a St. Jude prosthesis and more likely to have Shone's syndrome. By multivariate analysis prosthesis survival was predicted only by first MVR age: odds ratio (OR) 7.7 (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.6-22.7) and prosthesis size: OR 6.8 (95% CI 2.6-18.2). High risk patients (age <2 years and prosthesis <20 mm at first MVR) had an OR=46.3 compared with low-risk patients (age >or=2 years and prosthesis >or=20 mm at first MVR) over similar follow-up intervals. Using first-MVR weight-matched controls, body weight increased similarly for patients <2 years old who had a second MVR versus those who did not. Prosthesis size, however, differed significantly, with second MVR patients having smaller prostheses at first MVR (18.7+/-0.8 mm versus 22.4+/-3.6 mm, P=0.017). An estimate of current New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional status was class 1 in 76%, class 2 in 22%, and classes 3 or 4 in 2%., Conclusions: Prosthesis survival can be predicted based on first MVR age and prosthesis size. Somatic growth is comparable regardless of the need for second MVR. There is an increment in prosthesis size at second MVR, suggesting continued annular growth. Significant limitation of function after MVR is uncommon. MVR may be an appropriate strategy for children <5 years old despite the risk of second MVR in the youngest patients in whom the smallest prostheses are used.