The Annals of thoracic surgery · 2022
Melody Mitral Valve Is a Promising Alternative to Mechanical Valve Replacement for Young Children.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Chetan Devin, Szabo Adrienn B, Fan Chun-Po S, Morgan Conall T, Villemain Olivier, Chaturvedi Rajiv R, Benson Lee N, Honjo Osami
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes of Melody mitral valve to mechanical mitral valve replacement (MVR) for young children.
DESCRIPTION: Children who underwent Melody MVR from 2014 to 2020 were case-matched to mechanical MVR patients. Transplant-free survival and cumulative incidence of reintervention were compared. A subanalysis was performed for infants aged < 1 year (9 Melody MVRs and their matches).
EVALUATION: Twelve children underwent Melody MVR. Two children (17%) salvaged from mechanical support died. Five of 10 survivors (50%) had subsequent MVR. At 1 and 3 years, transplant-free survival (Melody: 83%, 83%; mechanical: 83%, 67%; P = .180) and reintervention (Melody: 9%, 39%; mechanical: 0%, 18%; P = .18) were equivalent between groups. For children < 1 year of age, Melody MVR had a modest survival benefit (Melody: 89%, 89%; mechanical: 80%, 60%; P = .046), while rate of reintervention remained equivalent (Melody: 13%, 32%; mechanical: 0%, 22%; P = .32).
CONCLUSIONS: For patients < 1 year old, Melody MVR offers a promising alternative and is a reasonable bridge to mechanical MVR, which can be performed safely at an older age. Further studies are necessary to corroborate these findings.
DESCRIPTION: Children who underwent Melody MVR from 2014 to 2020 were case-matched to mechanical MVR patients. Transplant-free survival and cumulative incidence of reintervention were compared. A subanalysis was performed for infants aged < 1 year (9 Melody MVRs and their matches).
EVALUATION: Twelve children underwent Melody MVR. Two children (17%) salvaged from mechanical support died. Five of 10 survivors (50%) had subsequent MVR. At 1 and 3 years, transplant-free survival (Melody: 83%, 83%; mechanical: 83%, 67%; P = .180) and reintervention (Melody: 9%, 39%; mechanical: 0%, 18%; P = .18) were equivalent between groups. For children < 1 year of age, Melody MVR had a modest survival benefit (Melody: 89%, 89%; mechanical: 80%, 60%; P = .046), while rate of reintervention remained equivalent (Melody: 13%, 32%; mechanical: 0%, 22%; P = .32).
CONCLUSIONS: For patients < 1 year old, Melody MVR offers a promising alternative and is a reasonable bridge to mechanical MVR, which can be performed safely at an older age. Further studies are necessary to corroborate these findings.