Key result
Diepoxy-treated conduits for pediatric RVOT reconstruction had stenosis mainly from calcification (27.6%), while glutaraldehyde-treated conduits had neointimal proliferation (25.0%).
Why the study?
Xenografts for RVOT reconstruction are typically treated with glutaraldehyde, but experimental studies showed potential benefits of epoxy treatment, prompting a clinical comparison in pediatric patients.
Do diepoxy-treated bovine pericardial valved conduits reduce conduit failure compared to glutaraldehyde-treated conduits in pediatric patients undergoing RVOT reconstruction?
Cohort (n=117)
No
Do diepoxy-treated bovine pericardial valved conduits reduce conduit failure compared to glutaraldehyde-treated conduits in pediatric patients undergoing RVOT reconstruction?
Diepoxy-treated bovine pericardial valved conduits are a suitable alternative to glutaraldehyde-treated conduits for pediatric RVOT reconstruction, potentially offering greater resistance to neointimal proliferation and thrombosis.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Distinct stenosis mechanisms by treatment warrant consideration in conduit selection; leaves open comparative failure rates in pediatric RVOT reconstruction.
BACKGROUND: Xenografts used for right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT) reconstruction are typically treated with glutaraldehyde. However, potential benefit of epoxy treatment was demonstrated in experimental studies. We aimed to compare diepoxy-treated bovine pericardial valved conduits (DE-PVCs) and glutaraldehyde-treated bovine pericardial valved conduits (GA-PVCs) for RVOT reconstruction in pediatric patients. METHODS: Between 2002 and 2017, 117 patients underwent RVOT reconstruction with PVC in single center: DE-PVC group, n = 39; and GA-PVC group, n = 78. After performing propensity score analysis (1:1) for the entire sample, 29 patients from the DE-PVC group were matched with 29 patients from the GA-PVC group. Conduit failure was typically caused by stenosis in both groups. In the DE-PVC group, the main cause of stenosis was xenograft calcification (27.6%); while in the GA-PVC group, it was mostly due to neointimal proliferation (25.0%) and, less often, calcification (14.3%). Conduit thrombosis was the cause of replacement in 6.9% of patients from the GA-PVC group. CONCLUSIONS: Diepoxy-treated bovine pericardial valved conduit is a suitable alternative to GA-PVC for RVOT reconstruction in pediatric patients. Diepoxy-treated bovine pericardial valved conduits may be less prone to conduit failure and more resistant to neointimal proliferation and conduit thrombosis than GA-PVCs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nichay et al. (2019) conducted a cohort in Right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT) reconstruction (n=117). Diepoxy-treated bovine pericardial valved conduits (DE-PVCs) vs. Glutaraldehyde-treated bovine pericardial valved conduits (GA-PVCs) was evaluated on Conduit failure and causes of stenosis (p=.037). Diepoxy-treated conduits for pediatric RVOT reconstruction had stenosis mainly from calcification (27.6%), while glutaraldehyde-treated conduits had neointimal proliferation (25.0%).
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: