4.8 Article

Sinus venosus atrial septal defect - Long-term postoperative outcome for 115 patients

Journal

CIRCULATION
Volume 112, Issue 13, Pages 1953-1958

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.104.493775

Keywords

heart defects, congenital; heart septal defects; surgery; survival

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background - Sinus venosus atrial septal defect (SVASD) differs from secundum atrial septal defect by its atrial septal location and its association with anomalous pulmonary venous connection (APVC). Data on long-term outcome after surgical repair are limited. Methods and Results - We reviewed outcomes of 115 patients (mean age +/- SD 34 +/- 23 years) with SVASD who had repair from 1972 through 1996. APVC was present in 112 patients (97%). Early mortality was 0.9%. Complete follow-up was obtained for 108 patients (95%) at 144 +/- 99 months. Symptomatic improvement was noted in 83 patients (77%), and deterioration was noted in 17 patients (16%). At follow-up, 7 (6%) of 108 patients had sinus node dysfunction, a permanent pacemaker, or both, and 15 (14%) of 108 patients had atrial fibrillation. Older age at repair was predictive of postoperative atrial fibrillation (P = 0.033). No reoperations were required during follow-up. Survival was not different from expected for an age- and sex-matched population. Clinical improvement was more common with older age at surgery (P = 0.014). Older age at repair (P = 0.008) and preoperative New York Heart Association class III or IV (P = 0.038) were independent predictors of late mortality. Conclusions - Operation for SVASD is associated with low morbidity and mortality, and postoperative subjective clinical improvement occurs irrespective of age at surgery. Postoperative atrial fibrillation appears to be related to older age at operation. SVASD repair achieves survival similar to that of a matched population and should be considered whenever repair may impact survival or symptoms.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available