Key result
Left atrioventricular valve replacement linked to ~100% lower five-year re-intervention risk compared to repair.
Why the study?
Outcomes and predictive factors following left atrioventricular valve reoperations after atrioventricular septal defect repair were not well characterized.
Does valve repair versus replacement affect survival and re-intervention rates in patients undergoing left atrioventricular valve reoperations following AVSD repair?
Cohort (n=40)
Does valve repair versus replacement affect survival and re-intervention rates in patients undergoing left atrioventricular valve reoperations following AVSD repair?
Absolute Event Rate: 100% vs 55%
p-value: p=0.006
In children undergoing LAVVR after AVSD repair, valve repair offers a survival advantage but has a higher re-intervention rate compared to valve replacement.
LAVVR after AVSD repair improves ventricular function and symptoms; leaves open optimal repair-versus-replacement selection pending prospective validation.
OBJECTIVES: We report results of left atrioventricular valve reoperations (LAVVR) following atrioventricular septal defect (AVSD) repair and examine variables predictive of outcome. METHODS: Multiple demographics and operative variables were analyzed to determine factors affecting survival and reoperation. RESULTS: Forty patients following partial (n = 9) or complete (n = 31) AVSD repair underwent 47 LAVVR (1992-2005). Median age was 0.87 years (24 days-7.7 years) at initial AVSD repair and 3.15 years (84 days-13.6 years) at subsequent LAVVR with median interval between AVSD repair and LAVVR of 1.76 years (1 day-12.9 years). First LAVVR included repair (n = 20) or replacement (n = 20). Operative mortality was 10% and five-year survival was 76 +/- 6%. Significant risk factors were complete AVSD (p < 0.001), valve replacement (p < 0.001) for early death, and young age at time of LAVVR (p = 0.03) for late death. Five-year freedom from LAVV re-intervention was 100% for replacement versus 55 +/- 13% for repair (p = 0.006). Overall, ejection fraction increased to 61 +/- 3% versus 42 +/- 2% preoperatively (p < 0.01), and left-ventricle end-diastolic dimension Z-score decreased to 0.05 +/- 0.36 versus 3.1 +/- 0.3 preoperatively (p < 0.01). Eighty-seven percent of children were in New York Heart Association class I/II at latest follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: LAVVR results in significant clinical improvement and lasting recovery in ventricular chamber function and size. Valve repair offers survival advantage and should be aggressively attempted; however, it is only achievable in 50% of cases. Valve replacement is necessary in cases associated with complex LAVV morphology or following repair failure. At intermediate follow-up, patients continue to be at risk of major valve-related morbidity, requirement for re-intervention, and cardiac death.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alsoufi et al. (2009) conducted a cohort in Atrioventricular septal defect requiring left atrioventricular valve reoperation (n=40). Left atrioventricular valve replacement vs. Left atrioventricular valve repair was evaluated on Five-year freedom from left atrioventricular valve re-intervention (p=0.006). Left atrioventricular valve replacement resulted in 100% five-year freedom from re-intervention compared to 55% for valve repair (p=0.006).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: