Paediatric aortic valve replacement: a meta-analysis and microsimulation study

Maximiliaan L Notenboom1, Art Schuermans2,3,4, Jonathan R G Etnel1

  • 1Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Erasmus MC, Doctor Molewaterplein 40, 3015 GD, Rotterdam, Zuid-Holland, The Netherlands.

PubMed

Insights

Paediatric aortic valve replacement (AVR) outcomes are suboptimal, with higher mortality in younger children. The Ross procedure offers a survival benefit over mechanical AVR (mAVR), but careful consideration of valve substitutes is crucial.

Area of Science:

  • Cardiovascular Surgery
  • Pediatric Cardiology
  • Biomedical Engineering

Background:

  • Paediatric aortic valve replacement (AVR) decision-making requires comprehensive outcome data.
  • Current outcomes for paediatric AVR are suboptimal, particularly for younger patients.

Approach:

  • A systematic review of 68 studies (5259 patients) published between 1990-2021 was conducted.
  • Data on early/late event rates and time-to-event for Ross, mechanical AVR (mAVR), homograft (hAVR), and bioprosthetic AVR were pooled.
  • Microsimulation modeling was used to estimate age-specific outcomes for different valve substitutes.

Key Points:

  • Pooled early mortality: Ross 3.7%, mAVR 7.0%, hAVR 10.6%.
  • Pooled late mortality rates/year: Ross 0.5%, mAVR 1.0%, hAVR 1.4%.
  • Microsimulation: 20-year reintervention risk was 42.0% for Ross vs. 17.8% for mAVR.

Conclusions:

  • The Ross procedure demonstrates a survival benefit compared to mAVR in paediatric patients.
  • All valve substitutes present considerable reintervention hazards.
  • Careful weighing of pros and cons of each valve substitute is essential for paediatric AVR selection.
Abstract