Why the study?
Comparative data between injectable bioprosthetic valves and conventional surgical pulmonary valve replacement in pediatric populations remain limited.
Does injectable pulmonary valve replacement improve early postoperative parameters and long-term valve function compared to conventional pulmonary valve replacement in pediatric patients with severe pulmonary regurgitation following tetralogy of Fallot repair?
Does injectable pulmonary valve replacement improve early postoperative parameters and long-term valve function compared to conventional pulmonary valve replacement in pediatric patients with severe pulmonary regurgitation following tetralogy of Fallot repair?
Injectable pulmonary valve replacement offers a safe, less invasive alternative to conventional surgery in selected pediatric patients with severe pulmonary regurgitation after tetralogy of Fallot repair, yielding better early recovery and comparable long-term outcomes.
May support injectable pulmonary valve use in select patients; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective validation.
Background/aim: Pulmonary regurgitation following tetralogy of Fallot repair is a common long-term complication requiring pulmonary valve replacement. Injectable bioprosthetic valves offer a less invasive alternative to conventional surgical replacement, but comparative data in pediatric populations remain limited. This study aimed to evaluate short-term and long-term clinical outcomes of injectable pulmonary valve replacement and conventional pulmonary valve replacement in pediatric patients with severe pulmonary regurgitation following tetralogy of Fallot repair. Materials and methods: This retrospective study included 22 pediatric patients who underwent pulmonary valve replacement. Patients were divided into injectable (n = 9) and conventional (n = 13) groups based on anatomical criteria. Primary outcomes included early postoperative parameters and long-term valve function. The mean follow-up duration was 10.5 ± 2.5 years. Results: Favorable early outcomes were noted in the injectable pulmonary valve replacement cohort, including shorter intensive care unit stay (16.8 ± 6.2 vs. 37.0 ± 23.4 h, p = 0.021), reduced mechanical ventilation duration (5.2 ± 3.9 vs. 15.4 ± 11.4 h, p = 0.019), decreased chest tube drainage (206.7 ± 108.2 vs. 513.1 ± 274.1 mL, p = 0.005), and shorter hospital stay (5.4 ± 2.4 vs. 8.4 ± 3.1 days, p = 0.026). Long-term outcomes indicated similar valve function and right ventricular remodeling in the two groups, with excellent freedom from reintervention (100%) during follow-up. Conclusion: Injectable pulmonary valve replacement appears to be a safe alternative, offering favorable early outcomes and long-term valve performance comparable to conventional methods. However, clinical experience and precise patient selection remain critical for achieving optimal results.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tak et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: