Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T05:10:25.405Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Balloon dilatation versus surgical valvotomy for congenital aortic stenosis: a propensity score matched study

Part of: Surgery Interventional Cardiology Aortic Coarctation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 April 2021

Benjamin C. Auld Open the ORCID record for Benjamin C. Auld [Opens in a new window] ,
Julia S. Donald ,
Naychi Lwin ,
Kim Betts ,
Nelson O. Alphonso ,
Prem S. Venugopal ,
Robert N. Justo ,
Cameron J. Ward ,
Igor E. Konstantinov  and
Tom R. Karl
...Show all authors
Benjamin C. Auld*
Affiliation:
Queensland Paediatric Cardiac Service, Queensland Children’s Hospital, South Brisbane, Australia UQ School of Medicine, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Australia
Julia S. Donald
Affiliation:
Royal Children’s Hospital, Melbourne, Australia University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, Parkville, Australia
Naychi Lwin
Affiliation:
Queensland Paediatric Cardiac Service, Queensland Children’s Hospital, South Brisbane, Australia UQ School of Medicine, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Australia
Kim Betts
Affiliation:
School of Public Health, Curtin University, Bentley, Australia
Nelson O. Alphonso
Affiliation:
Queensland Paediatric Cardiac Service, Queensland Children’s Hospital, South Brisbane, Australia UQ School of Medicine, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Australia
Prem S. Venugopal
Affiliation:
Queensland Paediatric Cardiac Service, Queensland Children’s Hospital, South Brisbane, Australia UQ School of Medicine, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Australia
Robert N. Justo
Affiliation:
Queensland Paediatric Cardiac Service, Queensland Children’s Hospital, South Brisbane, Australia UQ School of Medicine, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Australia
Cameron J. Ward
Affiliation:
Queensland Paediatric Cardiac Service, Queensland Children’s Hospital, South Brisbane, Australia UQ School of Medicine, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Australia
Igor E. Konstantinov
Affiliation:
Royal Children’s Hospital, Melbourne, Australia University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, Parkville, Australia
Tom R. Karl
Affiliation:
Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, USA
Benjamin W. Anderson
Affiliation:
Queensland Paediatric Cardiac Service, Queensland Children’s Hospital, South Brisbane, Australia UQ School of Medicine, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Australia
*
Author for correspondence: Benjamin C. Auld, Queensland Paediatric Cardiac Service, Queensland Children’s Hospital, 501 Stanley St, South Brisbane, 4101 Queensland, Australia. Tel: +61 3068 1111; Fax: +61 5687 3497. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background:

Balloon valvuloplasty and surgical aortic valvotomy have been the treatment mainstays for congenital aortic stenosis in children. Choice of intervention often differs depending upon centre bias with limited relevant, comparative literature.

Objectives:

This study aims to provide an unbiased, contemporary matched comparison of these balloon and surgical approaches.

Methods:

Retrospective analysis of patients with congenital aortic valve stenosis who underwent balloon valvuloplasty (Queensland Children’s Hospital, Brisbane) or surgical valvotomy (Royal Children’s Hospital, Melbourne) between 2005 and 2016. Patients were excluded if pre-intervention assessment indicated ineligibility to either group. Propensity score matching was performed based on age, weight, and valve morphology.

Results:

Sixty-five balloon patients and seventy-seven surgical patients were included. Overall, the groups were well matched with 18 neonates/25 infants in the balloon group and 17 neonates/28 infants in the surgical group. Median age at balloon was 92 days (range 2 days – 18.8 years) compared to 167 days (range 0 days – 18.1 years) for surgery (rank-sum p = 0.08). Mean follow-up was 5.3 years. There was one late balloon death and two early surgical deaths due to left ventricular failure. There was no significant difference in freedom from reintervention at latest follow-up (69% in the balloon group and 70% in the surgical group, p = 1.0).

Conclusions:

Contemporary analysis of balloon aortic valvuloplasty and surgical aortic valvotomy shows no difference in overall reintervention rates in the medium term. Balloon valvuloplasty performs well across all age groups, achieving delay or avoidance of surgical intervention.

Keywords

Aortic valve diseasepercutaneous interventionaortic valve diseasesurgical interventionCHDpaediatrics
Type
Original Article
Information
Cardiology in the Young , Volume 31 , Issue 12 , December 2021 , pp. 1984 - 1990
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Hoffman, JI, Kaplan, S. The incidence of congenital heart disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 2002; 39: 1890–900.10.1016/S0735-1097(02)01886-7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lababidi, Z. Aortic balloon valvuloplasty. Am Heart J 1983; 106: 751–752.10.1016/0002-8703(83)90097-2CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Siddiqui, J, Brizard, CP, Galati, JC, et al. Surgical valvotomy and repair for neonatal and infant congenital aortic stenosis achieves better results than interventional catheterization. J Am Coll Cardiol 2013; 62: 2134–2140.10.1016/j.jacc.2013.07.052CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hill, GD, Ginde, S, Rios, R, Frommelt, PC, Hill, KD. Surgical valvotomy versus balloon valvuloplasty for congenital aortic valve stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Heart Assoc 2016; 5: e003931.10.1161/JAHA.116.003931CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zoghbi, WA, Enriquez-Sarano, M, Foster, E, et al. Recommendations for evaluation of the severity of native valvular regurgitation with two-dimensional and Doppler echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr: Offic Publ Am Soc Echocardiogr 2003; 16: 777–802.10.1016/S0894-7317(03)00335-3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Feltes, TF, Bacha, E, Beekman, RH, et al. Indications for cardiac catheterization and intervention in pediatric cardiac disease: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2011; 123: 2607–2652.10.1161/CIR.0b013e31821b1f10CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moore, JW, Vincent, RN, Beekman, RH, et al. Procedural results and safety of common interventional procedures in congenital heart disease: initial report from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry. J Am Coll Cardiol 2014; 64: 2439–2451.10.1016/j.jacc.2014.09.045CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mullins, CE, Nihill, MR, Vick, GW, et al. Double balloon technique for dilation of valvular or vessel stenosis in congenital and acquired heart disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 1987; 10: 107–114.10.1016/S0735-1097(87)80168-7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
d’Udekem, Y. Aortic valve surgery in children. Heart 2011; 97: 1182–1189.10.1136/hrt.2009.190520CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Therneau, TM. Lumley TJSaPoC. Package ‘survival’. 2014. Retrieved April 2, 2021, from https://github.com/therneau/survival Google Scholar
Ho, D, Imai, K, King, G, Stuart, E, Whitworth, A. Package ‘MatchIt’. Version, 2018.Google Scholar
McCrindle, BW, Blackstone, EH, Williams, WG, et al. Are outcomes of surgical versus transcatheter balloon valvotomy equivalent in neonatal critical aortic stenosis? Circulation 2001; 104: I152–1158.10.1161/hc37t1.094837CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, JW, Rodefeld, MD, Ruzmetov, M, Eltayeb, O, Yurdakok, O, Turrentine, MW. Surgical valvuloplasty versus balloon aortic dilation for congenital aortic stenosis: are evidence-based outcomes relevant? Ann Thorac Surg 2012; 94: 146–153.10.1016/j.athoracsur.2012.02.054CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prijic, SM, Vukomanovic, VA, Stajevic, MS, et al. Balloon dilation and surgical valvotomy comparison in non-critical congenital aortic valve stenosis. Pediatr Cardiol 2015; 36: 616–624.10.1007/s00246-014-1056-6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Loomba, RS, Bowman, JL, Cao, Y, et al. Is aortic valve leaflet morphology predictive of outcome in pediatric aortic valve stenosis? Congenit Heart Dis 2015; 10: 552–560.10.1111/chd.12278CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Justo, RN, McCrindle, BW, Benson, LN, Williams, WG, Freedom, RM, Smallhorn, JF. Aortic valve regurgitation after surgical versus percutaneous balloon valvotomy for congenital aortic valve stenosis. Am J Cardiol 1996; 77: 1332–1338.10.1016/S0002-9149(96)00201-9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Donald, JS, Konstantinov, IE. Surgical aortic valvuloplasty versus balloon aortic valve dilatation in children. World J Pediatr Congenital Heart Surg 2016; 7: 583–591.10.1177/2150135116651091CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Auld, B, Carrigan, L, Ward, C, Justo, R, Alphonso, N, Anderson, B. Balloon aortic valvuloplasty for congenital aortic stenosis: a 14-year single centre review. Heart Lung Circ 2018; 28: 632–636.10.1016/j.hlc.2018.02.014CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed