Search

OBJECTIVES: To support clinical decision-making in children with aortic valve disease, by compiling the available evidence on outcome after paediatric aortic valve repair (AVr). METHODS: A systematic review of literature reporting clinical outcome after paediatric AVr (mean age at surgery <18 years) published between 1 January 1990 and 23 December 2021 was conducted. Early event risks, late event rates and time-to-event data were pooled. A microsimulation model was employed to simulate the lives of individual children, infants and neonates following AVr. RESULTS: Forty-one publications were included, encompassing 2 623 patients with 17 217 patient-years of follow-up (median follow-up: 7.3 years; range: 1.0-14.4 years). Pooled mean age during repair for aortic stenosis in children (<18 years), infants (<1 year) or neonates (<30 days) was 5.2 ± 3.9 years, 35 ± 137 days and 11 ± 6 days, respectively. Pooled early mortality after stenosis repair in children, infants and neonates, respectively, was 3.5% (95% confidence interval: 1.9-6.5%), 7.4% (4.2-13.0%) and 10.7% (6.8-16.9%). Pooled late reintervention rate after stenosis repair in children, infants and neonates, respectively, was 3.31%/year (1.66-6.63%/year), 6.84%/year (3.95-11.83%/year) and 6.32%/year (3.04-13.15%/year); endocarditis 0.07%/year (0.03-0.21%/year), 0.23%/year (0.07-0.71%/year) and 0.49%/year (0.18-1.29%/year); and valve thrombosis 0.05%/year (0.01-0.26%/year), 0.15%/year (0.04-0.53%/year) and 0.19%/year (0.05-0.77%/year). Microsimulation-based mean life expectancy in the first 20 years for children, infants and neonates with aortic stenosis, respectively, was 18.4 years (95% credible interval: 18.1-18.7 years; relative survival compared to the matched general population: 92.2%), 16.8 years (16.5-17.0 years; relative survival: 84.2%) and 15.9 years (14.8-17.0 years; relative survival: 80.1%). Microsimulation-based 20-year risk of r

AIMS: To support decision-making in children undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR), by providing a comprehensive overview of published outcomes after paediatric AVR, and microsimulation-based age-specific estimates of outcome with different valve substitutes. METHODS AND RESULTS: A systematic review of published literature reporting clinical outcome after paediatric AVR (mean age <18 years) published between 1/1/1990 and 11/08/2021 was conducted. Publications reporting outcome after paediatric Ross procedure, mechanical AVR (mAVR), homograft AVR (hAVR), and/or bioprosthetic AVR were considered for inclusion. Early risks (<30d), late event rates (>30d) and time-to-event data were pooled and entered into a microsimulation model. Sixty-eight studies, of which one prospective and 67 retrospective cohort studies, were included, encompassing a total of 5259 patients (37 435 patient-years; median follow-up: 5.9 years; range 1-21 years). Pooled mean age for the Ross procedure, mAVR, and hAVR was 9.2 ± 5.6, 13.0 ± 3.4, and 8.4 ± 5.4 years, respectively. Pooled early mortality for the Ross procedure, mAVR, and hAVR was 3.7% (95% CI, 3.0%-4.7%), 7.0% (5.1%-9.6%), and 10.6% (6.6%-17.0%), respectively, and late mortality rate was 0.5%/year (0.4%-0.7%/year), 1.0%/year (0.6%-1.5%/year), and 1.4%/year (0.8%-2.5%/year), respectively. Microsimulation-based mean life-expectancy in the first 20 years was 18.9 years (18.6-19.1 years) after Ross (relative life-expectancy: 94.8%) and 17.0 years (16.5-17.6 years) after mAVR (relative life-expectancy: 86.3%). Microsimulation-based 20-year risk of aortic valve reintervention was 42.0% (95% CI: 39.6%-44.6%) after Ross and 17.8% (95% CI: 17.0%-19.4%) after mAVR. CONCLUSION: Results of paediatric AVR are currently suboptimal with substantial mortality especially in the very young with considerable reintervention hazards for all valve substitutes, but the Ross procedure provides a survival benefit over mAVR. Pros and cons of subs

The optimal choice of graft material in patients ≥70 years of age undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting remains unknown. A systematic review of literature was conducted by searching PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases for original publications that compared bilateral internal thoracic artery (BITA) grafting with single internal thoracic artery grafting in patients ≥70 years of age. Data were extracted by 2 independent investigators and meta-analyzed with the use of random effects. A total of 10 studies, including 11,185 patients, met the inclusion criteria. No differences in early mortality and morbidity, with the exemption of sternal wound complications which were more frequently observed in the BITA group (odds ratio 1.72, 95% 1.00 to 2.96 confidence interval [CI], p = 0.05; propensity score-matched population odds ratio 1.58, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.29, p = 0.02), were observed. Overall survival was superior in the overall patient population (hazard ratio [HR] 0.76, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.86, p <0.001), after applying a blanking period of 3 months to the overall patient population (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.92, p = 0.005) as well as in the matched population (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.89, p = 0.002); in all cases, a benefit was readily seen within a few years after surgery. The difference in freedom from major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events failed to reach statistical significance (overall patient population HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.13, p = 0.10; matched population HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.16, p = 0.11). In conclusion, BITA grafting can be safely performed in patients ≥70 years of age as late clinical benefits are expected to manifest themselves readily within a few years after surgery.

Introduction: This study aims to provide an overview of outcomes after right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT) reconstruction using different valve substitutes in different age groups for different indications. Methods: The literature was systematically searched for articles published between January 2000 and June 2021 reporting on clinical and/or echocardiographic outcomes after RVOT reconstruction with valve substitutes. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted for outcomes, and time-related outcomes were visualized by pooled Kaplan–Meier curves. Subgroup analyses were performed according to etiology, implanted valve substitute and patient age. Results: Two hundred and seventeen articles were included, comprising 37,078 patients (age: 22.86 ± 11.29 years; 31.6% female) and 240,581 patient-years of follow-up. Aortic valve disease (Ross procedure, 46.6%) and Tetralogy of Fallot (TOF, 27.0%) were the two main underlying etiologies. Homograft and xenograft accounted for 83.7 and 32.6% of the overall valve substitutes, respectively. The early mortality, late mortality, reintervention and endocarditis rates were 3.36% (2.91–3.88), 0.72%/y (95% CI: 0.62–0.82), 2.62%/y (95% CI: 2.28–3.00), and 0.38%/y (95%CI: 0.31–0.47) for all patients. The early mortality for TOF and truncus arteriosus (TA) were 1.95% (1.31–2.90) and 10.67% (7.79–14.61). Pooled late mortality and reintervention rate were 0.59%/y (0.39–0.89), 1.41%/y (0.87–2.27), and 1.20%/y (0.74–1.94), 10.15%/y (7.42–13.90) for TOF and TA, respectively. Endocarditis rate was 0.21%/y (95% CI: 0.16–0.27) for a homograft substitute and 0.80%/y (95%CI: 0.60–1.09) for a xenograft substitute. Reintervention rate for infants, children and adults was 8.80%/y (95% CI: 6.49–11.95), 4.75%/y (95% CI: 3.67–6.14), and 0.72%/y (95% CI: 0.36–1.42), respectively. Conclusion: This study shows RVOT reconstruction with valve substitutes can be performed with acceptable mortality and morbidity rates for most patients. Reinterventions

Objectives: Restenosis after aortic arch reconstruction is a known complication in neonates and infants. Homograft is the most commonly used patch material for aortic arch reconstructions in our center. Since 2014, tissue-engineered bovine pericardium (CardioCel) has been used as an alternative. The aim of our study was to determine whether the choice of material affected the development of restenosis in these patients. Methods: Data of all neonates and infants who underwent aortic arch reconstruction with the use of any patch material between 2005 and 2016 were analyzed. Restenosis was defined by the need for reintervention, either percutaneous or surgical. Results: Forty-one patients underwent aortic arch repair. Excluding the 30-day mortality, 36 patients represented the study population. At primary repair, the aortic arch was reconstructed with homograft (n = 26) or CardioCel (n = 10). Restenosis was documented during the first year of life in 13 patients: Six (23%) patients in the homograft group and seven (70%) patients in the CardioCel group (P = .01). In the homograft group, the median time from operation to first intervention for restenosis was 22.0 (range: 14-32) weeks, as compared to 14.0 (range: 7-21) weeks in the CardioCel group (P = .04). Conclusion: We conclude that choice of patch material is likely to be an important determinant for the risk of restenosis needing reintervention following reconstruction of the aortic arch in neonates and infants.

Background In response to an increased need for patient information in congenital heart disease, we previously developed an online, evidence-based information portal for patients with congenital aortic and pulmonary valve disease. To assess its effectiveness, a stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial was conducted. Methods Adult patients and caregivers of paediatric patients with congenital aortic and/or pulmonary valve disease and/or tetralogy of Fallot who visited the outpatient clinic at any of the four participating centres in the Netherlands between 1 March 2016-1 July 2017 were prospectively included. The intervention (information portal) was introduced in the outpatient clinic according to a stepped-wedge randomised design. One month after outpatient clinic visit, each participant completed a questionnaire on disease-specific knowledge, anxiety, depression, mental quality of life, involvement and opinion/attitude concerning patient information and involvement. Results 343 participants were included (221 control, 122 intervention). Cardiac diagnosis (p=0.873), educational level (p=0.153) and sex (p=0.603) were comparable between the two groups. All outcomes were comparable between groups in the intention-to-treat analyses. However, only 51.6% of subjects in the intervention group (n=63) reported actually visiting the portal. Among these subjects (as-treated), disease-specific knowledge (p=0.041) and mental health (p=0.039) were significantly better than in control subjects, while other baseline and outcome variables were comparable. Conclusion Even after being invited by their cardiologists, only half of the participants actually visited the information portal. Only in those participants that actually visited the portal, knowledge of disease and mental health were significantly better. This underlines the importance of effective implementation of online evidence-based patient information portals in clinical practice.

Background: Adverse effects, treatment resistance and high costs associated with pharmacological treatment of hypertension have led to growing interest in non-pharmacological complementary therapies such as music interventions. This meta-analysis aims to provide an overview of reported evidence on the efficacy of music interventions in the treatment of hypertension. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted for publications on the effect of music interventions on blood pressure in adult hypertensive subjects published between January 1990-June 2014. Randomized controlled trials with a follow-up duration >= 28 days were included. Blood pressure measures were pooled using inverse variance weighting. Results: Of the 1689 abstracts reviewed, 10 randomized controlled trials were included. Random-effects pooling of the music intervention groups showed a trend toward a decrease in mean systolic blood pressure (SBP) from 144 mmHg(95 % CI: 137-152) to 134 mmHg(95 % CI: 124-144), and in mean diastolic blood pressure (DBP) from 84 mmHg(95 % CI: 78-89) to 78 mmHg(95 % CI: 73-84). Fixed-effect analysis of a subgroup of 3 trials with valid control groups showed a significant decrease in pooled mean SBP and DBP in both intervention and control groups. A comparison between music intervention groups and control groups was not possible due to unavailable measures of dispersion. Conclusions: This systematic review and meta-analysis revealed a trend towards a decrease in blood pressure in hypertensive patients who received music interventions, but failed to establish a cause-effect relationship between music interventions and blood pressure reduction. Considering the potential value of this safe, low-cost intervention, well-designed, high quality and sufficiently powered randomized studies assessing the efficacy of music interventions in the treatment of hypertension are warranted.