medigraphic.com
ISSN 2448-5640 (Print)
Diario Oficial de la Sociedad Mexicana de Cirugía Cardiaca, A.C., y del Colegio Mexicano de Cirugía Cardiovascular y Torácica, A.C.

2022, Number 2

<< Back Next >>

Cir Card Mex 2022; 7 (2)

Surgical outcome of pediatric patients undergoing aortic annular enlargement

Ortega-Zhindón DB, Flores-Sarria IP, Calderón-Colmenero J, García-Montes JA, Cervantes-Salazar JL

Language: English
References: 19
Page: 28-32
PDF size: 627.91 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Objective. The aim of the study was to evaluate the clinical and surgical outcomes of pediatric patients undergoing enlargement of the aortic valve annulus. Methods. A retrospective study was carried out in which patients undergoing enlargement of the aortic annulus were included in our institution between January 1, 2003 and March 31, 2020. Demographic characteristics and perioperative conditions were described. Results. Fifty-two patients were included, with an average age of 11 ± 4.4 years; 55.8% male. The most frequent diagnosis was congenital aortic stenosis (38.8%) and enlargement of the aortic annulus was mainly performed by the Manougian procedure (40.4%). In 90.4% of the cases, mechanical aortic prostheses were used, with an average size of 20.8 ± 2.3 mm. No significant risk factors associated with mortality were found. The overall survival was 86.5%, with a better outcome in those who underwent the Manougian procedure. Conclusions. The results after enlargement of the aortic annulus in the pediatric population are excellent in the short and long term, regardless of the use of mechanical or biological prostheses and valvular size.


REFERENCES

  1. Myers PO, Mokashi SA, Horgan E, et al. Outcomes after mechanical aortic valvereplacement in children and young adults with congenital heart disease. J ThoracCardiovasc Surg. 2019; 157(1): 329-340.

  2. Brown JW, Ruzmetov M, Vijay P, Rodefeld MD, Turrentine MW. The Ross-Konnoprocedure in children: outcomes, autograft and allograft function, and reoperations.Ann Thorac Surg. 2006; 82(4): 1301-1306.

  3. Sant'anna JR, de Bacco FW, Santánna RT, Kalil RA, Prates PR, Nesralla IA. Aorticvalve replacement with anterior and posterior enlargement of small aortic annulusis comparable to surgery with normal annulus. Rev Port Cardiol. 2006; 25(6): 593-602.

  4. Sankalp S, Yadav M, Kunwar SS, Gupta A. Analysis of various techniques ofaortic root enlargement. Asian Cardiovasc Thorac Ann. 2021; 29(6): 565-573.

  5. Nicks R, Cartmill T, Bernstein L. Hypoplasia of the aortic root. The problem ofaortic valve replacement. Thorax. 1970; 25(3): 339-346.

  6. Konno S, Imai Y, Iida Y, Nakajima M, Tatsuno K. A new method for prostheticvalve replacement in congenital aortic stenosis associated with hypoplasia of theaortic valve ring. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1975; 70(5): 909-917.

  7. Rastan H, Koncz J. Aortoventriculoplasty: a new technique for the treatment ofleft ventricular outflow tract obstruction. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1976; 71(6):920-927.

  8. Manouguian S, Seybold-Epting W. Patch enlargement of the aortic valve ring byextending the aortic incision into the anterior mitral leaflet. New operative technique.J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1979; 78(3): 402-412.

  9. Kulik A, Al-Saigh M, Chan V, et al. Enlargement of the small aortic root duringaortic valve replacement: is there a benefit? Ann Thorac Surg. 2008; 85(1): 94-

  10. 100.10. Ortega-Zhindón DB, Campos-Badillo A, López-Echeverría WE, Flores-CalderónO, Dajer-Fadel WL, Ramírez-Castañeda S. Ampliación del anillo aórtico, implandysfunctionte protésico mitral y comisurotomía tricuspidea en un reoperado. Reporte de caso.Cir Card Mex. 2018; 3(3): 93-96.

  11. AHA medical/scientific statement. 1994 revisions to classification of functionalcapacity and objective assessment of patients with diseases of the heart. Circulation.1994; 90(1): 644-645.

  12. Otto CM, Nishimura RA, Bonow RO, et al. 2020 ACC/AHA Guideline for theManagement of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease: A Report of the AmericanCollege of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on ClinicalPractice Guidelines. Circulation. 2021; 143(5): 72-227.

  13. Schlein J, Simon P, Wollenek G, Base E, Laufer G, Zimpfer D. Aortic valve replacementin pediatric patients: 30 years single center experience. J CardiothoracSurg. 2021; 16(1): 259.

  14. Otaki M, Oku H, Nakamoto S, Kitayama H, Ueda M, Matsumoto T. Two-directionalaortic annular enlargement for aortic valve replacement in the small aorticannulus. Ann Thorac Surg. 1997; 63(1): 261-263.

  15. Alsoufi B, Knight JH, St Louis J, Raghuveer G, Kochilas L. Are Mechanical ProsthesesValid Alternatives to the Ross Procedure in Young Children Under 6 YearsOld? Ann Thorac Surg. 2022; 113(1): 166-173.

  16. Peterson MD, Borger MA, Feindel CM, David TE. Aortic annular enlargementduring aortic valve replacement: improving results with time. Ann Thorac Surg.2007; 83(6): 2044-2049.

  17. Sommers KE, David TE. Aortic valve replacement with patch enlargement of theaortic annulus. Ann Thorac Surg. 1997; 63(6): 1608-1612.

  18. Dhareshwar J, Sundt TM 3rd, Dearani JA, Schaff HV, Cook DJ, Orszulak TA.Aortic root enlargement: what are the operative risks?. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg.2007; 134(4): 916-924.

  19. Mohty D, Malouf JF, Girard SE, et al. Impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch onlong-term survival in patients with small St Jude Medical mechanical prosthesesin the aortic position. Circulation. 2006; 113(3): 420-426.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com