European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery · 2015
A single-centre 37-year experience with reoperation after primary repair of atrioventricular septal defect.
Оценочное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Sojak Vladimir, Kooij Marlotte, Yazdanbakhsh Aria, Koolbergen Dave R, Bruggemans Eline F, Hazekamp Mark G
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate our experience with patients reoperated after primary repair of atrioventricular septal defect (AVSD) and identify predictors of poor outcome.
METHODS: Between 1976 and 2014, 69 patients were reoperated after primary repair of partial (n = 28), intermediate (n = 15) or complete (n = 26) AVSD.
RESULTS: Median age at first reoperation was 62.4 (range, 1.6-845) months, median interval to first reoperation was 22.3 (range, 0.2-598) months. Main indications for first reoperation included left atrioventricular valve (LAVV) pathology (66%), residual septal defect (19%) and left ventricle outflow tract obstruction (LVOTO; 4%). Procedures to address LAVV pathology included various valvuloplasties in 47 (77%) patients and valve replacement in 14 (23%) patients. A second, third, fourth and fifth reoperation was required in 27, 12, 4 and 1 patient, respectively. Most common procedures were LAVV replacement (LAVVR), LVOTO relief, pacemaker implantation and right atrioventricular valve procedure. Freedom from reoperation after LAVV valvuloplasty (LAVVP) was 84 and 62% at 1 and 10 years, respectively. There were 10 early and 4 late deaths. Estimated overall survival at 1, 5 and 10 years was 87, 83 and 83%, respectively. Double orifice LAVV (DOLAVV) was a risk factor for in-hospital and overall mortality [odds ratio (OR) = 14.5; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.2-178.7; P = 0.037 and hazard ratio (HR) = 6.8; 95% CI = 1.5-31.7; P = 0.015, respectively]. Patients with LAVVP and LAVVR differed significantly in overall survival (P = 0.014). At the last follow-up (median, 9.8; range, 0-34 years), 84% survivors were in New York Heart Association Class I or II.
CONCLUSIONS: Many patients reoperated after primary AVSD repair needed surgical reintervention. LAVV pathology was the most common indication for reoperation. DOLAVV was a risk factor for mortality. Particular AVSD type did not appear to be a risk factor for mortality or LAVVP failure. There is some evidence for the close relationship between LAVV pathology and LVOTO in subjects undergoing reoperation after primary AVSD repair as some patients with initial LAVV problems needed LVOTO repair later on and vice versa.
METHODS: Between 1976 and 2014, 69 patients were reoperated after primary repair of partial (n = 28), intermediate (n = 15) or complete (n = 26) AVSD.
RESULTS: Median age at first reoperation was 62.4 (range, 1.6-845) months, median interval to first reoperation was 22.3 (range, 0.2-598) months. Main indications for first reoperation included left atrioventricular valve (LAVV) pathology (66%), residual septal defect (19%) and left ventricle outflow tract obstruction (LVOTO; 4%). Procedures to address LAVV pathology included various valvuloplasties in 47 (77%) patients and valve replacement in 14 (23%) patients. A second, third, fourth and fifth reoperation was required in 27, 12, 4 and 1 patient, respectively. Most common procedures were LAVV replacement (LAVVR), LVOTO relief, pacemaker implantation and right atrioventricular valve procedure. Freedom from reoperation after LAVV valvuloplasty (LAVVP) was 84 and 62% at 1 and 10 years, respectively. There were 10 early and 4 late deaths. Estimated overall survival at 1, 5 and 10 years was 87, 83 and 83%, respectively. Double orifice LAVV (DOLAVV) was a risk factor for in-hospital and overall mortality [odds ratio (OR) = 14.5; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.2-178.7; P = 0.037 and hazard ratio (HR) = 6.8; 95% CI = 1.5-31.7; P = 0.015, respectively]. Patients with LAVVP and LAVVR differed significantly in overall survival (P = 0.014). At the last follow-up (median, 9.8; range, 0-34 years), 84% survivors were in New York Heart Association Class I or II.
CONCLUSIONS: Many patients reoperated after primary AVSD repair needed surgical reintervention. LAVV pathology was the most common indication for reoperation. DOLAVV was a risk factor for mortality. Particular AVSD type did not appear to be a risk factor for mortality or LAVVP failure. There is some evidence for the close relationship between LAVV pathology and LVOTO in subjects undergoing reoperation after primary AVSD repair as some patients with initial LAVV problems needed LVOTO repair later on and vice versa.