4.5 Article

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

期刊

HEART
卷 104, 期 22, 页码 1864-1870

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/heartjnl-2018-312958

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Bristol Cardiovascular Biomedical Research Unit
  2. British Heart Foundation [CH/1992027/7163]
  3. MRC [MR/J015350/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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.

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

4.5
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