Why the study?
Does percutaneous transluminal aortic valvuloplasty (PTAV) effectively reduce pressure gradients and what is the risk of aortic regurgitation in children with valvular aortic stenosis?
Does percutaneous transluminal aortic valvuloplasty (PTAV) effectively reduce pressure gradients and what is the risk of aortic regurgitation in children with valvular aortic stenosis?
While PTAV effectively reduces pressure gradients in children with aortic stenosis, progressive aortic regurgitation is a common complication requiring long-term monitoring.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May warrant close post-PTAV AR surveillance in children; leaves open durability and need for prospective trials.
A questionnaire was used to survey the experience of 8 Japanese institutions with percutaneous transluminal aortic valvuloplasty (PTAV) in children. Among 99 procedures reported in 88 patients, sufficient data for analysis was obtained from 76 procedures in 72 patients. In those 76 procedures the pressure gradient decreased significantly from 68+/-25 (20-140) to 33+/-22 (0-100) mmHg (p<0.01), whereas aortic regurgitation (AR) increased at least one grade in 26 cases (34%). None of the parameters analyzed in this study were predictors of an increase in AR. The reduction in pressure gradient was judged as good in 44 of the 76 procedures (58%). A larger ring diameter, larger balloon diameter and larger ratio balloon diameter/the normal predicted diameter of the aortic valve ring significantly contributed to an effective reduction of pressure gradient. Follow up data (mean interval, 4 years) was available for 26 of 39 clinically effective procedures. AR progressed at least 1 grade in 11 (42%), and the pressure gradient re-developed to more than 50mmHg in 2 cases (8%). In Japan, PTAV has been accepted as a useful procedure for valvular aortic stenosis in children, but progressive AR or re-development of the pressure gradient is not uncommon even after clinically effective PTAV.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tomita et al. (2001) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: