Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T18:52:24.806Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Results of pulmonary balloon valvuloplasty persist and improve at late follow-up in isolated pulmonary valve stenosis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2017

John J. Parent ,
Michael M. Ross ,
Edgard A. Bendaly  and
John P. Breinholt
John J. Parent*
Affiliation:
Department of Pediatrics, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, United States of America
Michael M. Ross
Affiliation:
Department of Pediatrics, University of Colorado, Aurora, Colorado, United States of America
Edgard A. Bendaly
Affiliation:
Department of Pediatrics, Sanford School of Medicine, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, United States of America
John P. Breinholt
Affiliation:
Department of Pediatrics, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, Texas, United States of America
*
Correspondence to: J. J. Parent, MD, Department of Pediatrics, Indiana University School of Medicine, 705 Riley Hospital Drive, RR 127, Indianapolis, IN 46022, United States of America. Tel: 317 274 3343; Fax: 317 274 4022; E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background

Pulmonary balloon valvuloplasty is a safe and effective treatment for children with pulmonary valve stenosis. A few studies evaluate the long-term outcomes of the procedure, particularly the degree of pulmonary regurgitation. We evaluated the outcomes of children >1 year following valvuloplasty for pulmonary valve stenosis.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of children with pulmonary valve stenosis following pulmonary balloon valvuloplasty at a single institution was performed. Clinic summaries, catheterisation data, and echocardiographic data were reviewed. Inclusion criteria were isolated pulmonary valve stenosis, age <19 years at the time of intervention, and at least one echocardiogram performed at least 1 year after valvuloplasty.

Results

A total of 53 patients met inclusion criteria. The median age at valvuloplasty was 0.4 years (0.01–10.6 years). The last follow-up was 4.8±2.3 years following valvuloplasty. The pre-valvuloplasty peak instantaneous gradient by echocardiography was 60.6±14.6 mmHg. The peak gradient at the first postoperative echocardiography was reduced to 25.5±12 mmHg (p<0.001), and further decreased to 14.8±15.8 mmHg (p<0.001) at the most recent follow-up. The degree of regurgitation increased from before valvuloplasty to after valvuloplasty (p<0.001) but did not progress at the most recent follow-up (p=0.17). Only three patients (5.7%) required re-intervention for increasing pulmonary stenosis (two surgical; one repeat balloon). No significant procedural complications occurred.

Conclusions

Pulmonary balloon valvuloplasty remains a safe and effective treatment for children with isolated pulmonary valve stenosis, with excellent long-term outcomes and no mortality. A few patients require further intervention. Long-term follow-up demonstrates decreased, residual stenosis. Patients have a small, acute increase in pulmonary regurgitation following valvuloplasty, but no long-term progression.

Keywords

Pulmonary stenosispulmonary valve stenosispulmonary regurgitationvalvuloplastyballoon valvuloplasty
Type
Original Articles
Information
Cardiology in the Young , Volume 27 , Issue 8 , October 2017 , pp. 1566 - 1570
Check for updates
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2017 

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

1. Hoffman, Jl, Kaplan, S. The incindence of congenital heart disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 2002; 39: 1890–1900.Google Scholar
2. O’Connor, BK, Beekman, RH, Lindauer, A, Rocchini, A. Intermediate-term outcome after pulmonary balloon valvuloplasty: comparison with a matched surgical control group. J Am Coll Cardiol 1992; 20: 169–173.Google Scholar
3. Masura, J, Burch, M, Deanfield, JE, Sullivan, ID. Five-year follow-up after balloon pulmonary valvuloplasty. J Am Coll Cardiol 1993; 21: 132–136.Google Scholar
4. Jarrar, M, Betbout, F, Farhat, MB, et al. Long-term invasive and noninvasive results of percutaneous balloon pulmonary valvuloplasty in children, adolescents, and adults. Am Heart J 1999; 138 (Pt 1): 950–954.Google Scholar
5. Rao, PS. Percutaneous balloon pulmonary valvuloplasty: state of the art. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2007; 69: 747–763.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Peterson, C, Schilthuis, JJ, Dodge-Khatami, A, Hitchcock, JF, Meijboom, EJ, Bennink, GBWE. Comparative long-term results of surgery versus balloon pulmonary valvuloplasty for pulmonary valve stenosis in infants and children. Ann Thorac Surg 2003; 76: 1078–1082; discussion 1082-3.Google Scholar
7. Latson, LA. Critical pulmonary stenosis. J Interv Cardiol 2001; 14: 345–350.Google Scholar
8. Rome, JJ. Balloon pulmonary valvuloplasty. Pediatr Cardiol 1998; 19: 18–24; discussion 25-26.Google Scholar
9. Radtke, W, Keane, JF, Fellows, KE, Lang, P, Lock, JE. Percutaneous balloon valvotomy of congenital pulmonary stenosis using oversized balloons. J Am Coll Cardiol 1986; 8: 909–915.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. McCrindle, BW. Independent predictors of long-term results after balloon pulmonary valvuloplasty. Valvuloplasty and Angioplasty of Congenital Anomalies (VACA) Registry Investigators. Circulation 1994; 89: 1751–1759.Google Scholar
11. Poon, LKH, Menahem, S. Pulmonary regurgitation after percutaneous balloon valvuloplasty for isolated pulmonary valvar stenosis in childhood. Cardiol Young 2003; 13: 444–450.Google Scholar
12. Rao, PS, Galal, O, Patnana, M, Buck, SH, Wilson, AD. Results of three to 10 year follow up of balloon dilation of the pulmonary valve. Heart 1998; 80: 591–595.Google Scholar
13. Garty, Y, Veldtman, G, Lee, K, Benson, L. Late outcomes after pulmonary valve balloon dilatation in neonates, infants and children. J Invasive Cardiol 2005; 17: 318–322.Google Scholar