4.6 Article

Exercise capacity in children after total cavopulmonary connection: Lateral tunnel versus extracardiac conduit technique

期刊

JOURNAL OF THORACIC AND CARDIOVASCULAR SURGERY
卷 148, 期 4, 页码 1490-1497

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2013.12.046

关键词

-

资金

  1. Dutch Heart Foundation [2008T037]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

preferred treatment. TCPC can be performed using the intra-atrial lateral tunnel (ILT) or extracardiac conduit (ECC) technique. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate exercise capacity in contemporary TCPC patients and compare the results between the 2 techniques. Methods: A total of 101 TCPC patients (ILT, n = 42; ECC, n = 59; age, 12.2 +/- 2.6 years; age at TCPC completion, 3.2 +/- 1.1 years) underwent cardiopulmonary exercise testing. The patients were recruited prospectively from 5 tertiary referral centers. Results: For the entire group, the mean peak oxygen uptake was 74% +/- 14%, peak heart rate was 90% +/- 8%, peak workload was 62% +/- 13%, and slope of ventilation versus carbon dioxide elimination (VE/VCO2 slope) was 127% +/- 30% of the predicted value. For the ILT and ECC groups, patient age, age at TCPC completion, body surface area, peak workload, and peak heart rate were comparable. The percentage of predicted peak oxygen uptake was lower in the ILT group (70% +/- 12% vs 77% +/- 15%; P = .040), and the percentage of predicted VE/VCO2 slope was greater in the ILT group (123% +/- 36% vs 108% +/- 14%; P = .015). In a subgroup analysis that excluded ILT patients with baffle leak, these differences were not statistically significant. Conclusions: Common exercise parameters were impaired in contemporary Fontan patients. Chronotropic incompetence was uncommon. The peak oxygen uptake and VE/VCO2 slope were less favorable in ILT patients, likely related to baffle leaks in some ILT patients. These results have shown that a reduced exercise capacity in Fontan patients remains an important issue in contemporary cohorts. The ECC had a more favorable exercise outcome at medium-term follow-up.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据