Burden of Reintervention after Tetralogy of Fallot Repair: A joint pediatric and adult congenital experience over 30 years.

OBJECTIVE: There is a high burden of reintervention after repair of Tetralogy of Fallot (TOF). We compare procedural burden and late outcomes in valve sparing repair (VSR) and transannular patch (TAP) cohorts over 30 years. METHODS: Patients undergoing TOF repair (1990-2021, excluding complex TOF) were included in this study (n=1239) with subsequent comparisons between TAP (n=550) and VSR (n=648) cohorts. Descriptive statistics, cumulative incidence frequencies, survival analysis and propensity matching (n=425) were used to analyze reintervention burden and survival. RESULTS: Overall survival of the cohort was 96.7% at 15 years and 95.6% at 25 years, with similar survival between TAP and VSR cohorts (p=0.22). TAP cohort had increased incidence of procedural burden at 25 years (TAP 69.8% versus VSR 37.2%, p<0.001), with 34.6% undergoing ≥2 reinterventions. TAP cohort had higher incidence of surgical PV replacement at 15 years (TAP 20.7% versus VSR 7.6%, p<0.001) and placement of PA stents (TAP 20.2% versus VSR 4.9%, p<0.001). By contrast, VSR had higher incidence of RVOT reoperation at 15 years (VSR 7.3% versus TAP 3.6%, p=0.047). After propensity matching there was no survival advantage between the VSR and TAP cohorts (Era 2) whereas the need for RVOT reoperation was not different between the two cohorts (p=0.060). CONCLUSIONS: The procedural burden remains high following TOF repair. TAP is associated with higher procedural burden in matched and non-matched cohorts. VSR has increased risk of reoperation for RVOT obstruction only in non-matched comparisons. Anatomical complexity and surgical repair strategy influence procedural burden following TOF repair.

Long-Term Enlargement of the Neo-Aortic Root and Aortic Arch Following Arch Reconstruction in Hypoplastic Left Heart Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Long-term enlargement of the aortic arch after aortic arch reconstruction (AAR) in hypoplastic left heart syndrome (HLHS) is not well described. METHODS: Aortic arch measurements for 50 patients with HLHS who achieved Fontan completion were converted to Pediatric Heart Network z-scores. Dimensions were assessed using linear mixed models and differences among time points were evaluated with F-tests. Sub-analysis was conducted comparing Norwood (n=36) vs hybrid (n=14) strategies. RESULTS: Median time to last imaging was 6.4 (IQR, 3.5-11.3) years. Prior to intervention, the main pulmonary artery was dilated whereas the ascending aorta (AA), transverse arch (TA), and isthmus (ISTH) were hypoplastic. With AAR, there were expected increases in all arch z-scores. The aortic arch continued to dilate after AAR reaching peak values at 7 months [Neo-Aortic Complex (NAC): z= 6.9 (5.6-8.0)] or 12 months following stage I [AAo: z=6.1 (2.9-8.3); TA: z=4.7 (3.0-5.9)]. Following peak values, there was a gradual decline in z-scores with most components still at least mildly dilated at 16 years [NAC: z=3.2 (3.1-3.9), AAo: z=3.9 (3.3-4.2); TA: z=3.1 (2.5-3.7)] with abrupt calibre change at ISTH: z= -0.8 (-1.1- -0.3)]. Norwood and hybrid strategies showed similar enlargement profiles after 7 months of age. CONCLUSIONS: Neo-aortic root and aortic arch in HLHS are enlarged early after AAR and continue to enlarge out of proportion to normal controls until 12 months of age, with gradual decline in enlargement up to adolescence. Further work should focus on modifiable surgical factors which may prove important to optimize arch growth and geometry.

Association of left ventricular outflow tract size with arch morphology in interrupted aortic arch.

OBJECTIVES: Left ventricular outflow tract obstruction (LVOTO) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in infants with interrupted aortic arch (IAA). Left Ventricular Outflow Tract (LVOT) development may be flow-mediated, thus IAA morphology may influence LVOT diameter and subsequent reintervention. We investigated the association of IAA morphology [type and presence of aortic arch aberrancy (AAb)] with LVOT diameter and reintervention. METHODS: All surgical patients with IAA (2001-2022) were reviewed at a single institution. We compared IAA-A versus IAA-B; IAA with aortic AAb versus none; IAA-B with aberrant subclavian (AAbS) artery versus others. Primary outcomes included LVOT diameter (mm), LVOTO at discharge (≥50 mmHg), and LVOT reintervention. RESULTS: Seventy-seven infants (mean age 10 ± 19 days) were followed for 7.6 (5.5-9.7) years. Perioperative mortality was 3.9% (3/77) and long-term mortality was 5.2% (4/77). Out of 51 IAA-B (66%) and 22 IAA-A (31%) patients, 30% (n = 22) had AAb. Smaller LVOT diameter was associated with IAA-B [IAA-A: 5.40 (4.68-5.80), IAA-B: 4.60 (3.92-5.50), P = 0.007], AAb [AAb: 4.00 (3.70-5.04) versus none: 5.15 (4.30-5.68), P = 0.006], and combined IAA-B + AAbS [IAA-B + AAbS: 4.00 (3.70-5.02) versus other: 5.00 (4.30-5.68), P = 0.002]. The likelihood of LVOTO was higher among AAb [N = 6 (25%) vs N = 1 (2%), P = 0.004] and IAA-B + AAbS [N = 1 (2%) vs N = 6 (30%), P = 0.002]. Time-to-event analysis showed a signal towards increased LVOT reintervention in IAA-B + AAbS (P = 0.11). CONCLUSIONS: IAA-B and AAb are associated with small LVOT diameter and early LVOTO, especially in combination. This may reflect lower flow in the proximal arch during development. Most reinterventions occur in IAA-B + AAbS, hence these patients should be carefully considered for LVOT intervention at the time of initial repair.

Promoting Self-management and Patient Activation Through eHealth: Protocol for a Systematic Literature Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Major advances in different cancer treatment modalities have been made, and people are now living longer with cancer. However, patients with cancer experience a range of physical and psychological symptoms during and beyond cancer treatment. New models of care are needed to combat this rising challenge. A growing body of evidence supports the effectiveness of eHealth interventions in the delivery of supportive care to people living with the complexities of chronic health conditions. However, reviews on the effects of eHealth interventions are scarce in the field of cancer-supportive care, particularly for interventions with the aim of empowering patients to manage cancer treatment-related symptoms. For this reason, this protocol has been developed to guide a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effectiveness of eHealth interventions for supporting patients with cancer in managing cancer-related symptoms. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review with meta-analysis is conducted with the aim of identifying eHealth-based self-management intervention studies for adult patients with cancer and evaluating the efficacy of eHealth-based self-management tools and platforms in order to synthesize the empirical evidence on self-management and patient activation through eHealth. METHODS: A systematic review with meta-analysis and methodological critique of randomized controlled trials is conducted following Cochrane Collaboration methods. Multiple data sources are used to identify all potential research sources for inclusion in the systematic review: (1) electronic databases such as MEDLINE, (2) forward reference searching, and (3) gray literature. The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines for conducting the review were followed. The PICOS (Population, Interventions, Comparators, Outcomes, and Study Design) framework is used to identify relevant studies. RESULTS: The literature search yielded 10,202 publications. The title and abstract screening were completed in May 2022. Data will be summarized, and if possible, meta-analyses will be performed. It is expected to finalize this review by Winter 2023. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this systematic review will provide the latest data on leveraging eHealth interventions and offering effective and sustainable eHealth care, both of which have the potential to improve quality and efficiency in cancer-related symptoms. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO 325582; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=325582. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/38758.