Primary repair versus surgical and transcatheter palliation in infants with tetralogy of Fallot.

OBJECTIVES: Treatment of infants with tetralogy of Fallot (ToF) has evolved in the last two decades with increasing use of primary surgical repair (PrR) and transcatheter right ventricular outflow tract palliation (RVOTd), and fewer systemic-to-pulmonary shunts (SPS). We aim to report contemporary results using these treatment options in a comparative study. METHODS: This a retrospective study using data from the UK National Congenital Heart Disease Audit. All infants (n=1662, median age 181 days) with ToF and no other complex defects undergoing repair or palliation between 2000 and 2013 were considered. Matching algorithms were used to minimise confounding due to lower age and weight in those palliated. RESULTS: Patients underwent PrR (n=1244), SPS (n=311) or RVOTd (n=107). Mortality at 12 years was higher when repair or palliation was performed before the age of 60 days rather than after, most significantly for primary repair (18.7% vs 2.2%, P<0.001), less so for RVOTd (10.8% vs 0%, P=0.06) or SPS (12.4% vs 8.3%, P=0.2). In the matched groups of patients, RVOTd was associated with more right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT) reinterventions (HR=2.3, P=0.05 vs PrR, HR=7.2, P=0.001 vs SPS) and fewer pulmonary valve replacements (PVR) (HR=0.3 vs PrR, P=0.05) at 12 years, with lower mortality after complete repair (HR=0.2 versus PrR, P=0.09). CONCLUSIONS: We found that RVOTd was associated with more RVOT reinterventions, fewer PVR and fewer deaths when compared with PrR in comparable, young infants, especially so in those under 60 days at the time of the first procedure.

Aortic Valve Replacement and the Ross Operation in Children and Young Adults.

BACKGROUND: There are several options available for aortic valve replacement (AVR), with few comparative reports in the literature. The optimal choice for AVR in each age group is not clear. OBJECTIVES: The study sought to report and compare outcomes after AVR in the young using data from a national database. METHODS: AVR procedures were compared after advanced matching, both in pairs and in a 3-way manner, using a Bayesian dynamic survival model. RESULTS: A total of 1,501 patients who underwent AVR in the United Kingdom between 2000 and 2012 were included. Of these, 47.8% had a Ross procedure, 37.8% a mechanical AVR, 10.9% a bioprosthesis AVR, and 3.5% a homograft AVR, with Ross patients being significantly younger when compared to the other groups. Overall survival at 12 years was 94.6%. In children, the Ross procedure had a 12.7% higher event-free probability (death or any reintervention) at 10 years when compared to mechanical AVR (p = 0.05). We also compared all procedures except the homograft in a matched population of young adults, where the bioprosthesis had the lowest event-free probability of 78.8%, followed by comparable results in mechanical AVR and Ross, with 86.3% and 89.6%, respectively. Younger age was associated with mortality and pulmonary reintervention in the Ross group and with aortic reintervention in the mechanical AVR. Of all 3 options, only the patients undergoing the Ross procedure approached the survival of the general population. CONCLUSIONS: AVR in the young achieves good results, with the Ross being overall better suited for this age group, especially in children. Although freedom from aortic valve reintervention is superior after the Ross procedure, the need for homograft reinterventions is an issue to take into account. All methods have advantages and limitations, with reinterventions being an issue in the long term for all, more crucially in smaller children.