• Evaluation of direct and long-term results of balloon valvuloplasty of aortic stenosis in newborns

Evaluation of direct and long-term results of balloon valvuloplasty of aortic stenosis in newborns

SOVREMENNAYA PEDIATRIYA.2018.4(92):65-68; doi 10.15574/SP.2018.92.65

Chornenka I., Maksymenko A., Kuzmenko Y., Kurkevych A.
SI «Scientific and Practical Medical Centre for Paediatric Cardiology and Cardiac Surgery of the Ministry of Health of Ukraine», Kyiv

Balloon valvuloplasty (BVP) can alleviate the symptoms of aortic stenosis (AS) in patients, but this procedure is accompanied by an increased risk of mortality and morbidity and often requires further reintervention. Despite this fact, BVP has no complications associated with the use of cardiopulmonary bypass in newborns, which is particularly undesirable in patients with a severe or decompensated state and unstable haemodynamics.
Objective: to study the results of balloon valvuloplasty in newborns with isolated aortic stenosis.
Material and methods. During the period from 2010 to 2015, BVP were performed at the Centre for Paediatric Cardiology and Cardiac Surgery in 31 newborns as a primary method of correction of isolated AS. The median age was 8 days (from 0 to 27 days), the average weight was 3.4±0.6 kg (from 2.3 to 4.6 kg). Before operation, 29 (93.6%) patients had no aortic valve insufficiency, 1 child (3.22%) had a minimal insufficiency and in 1 case (3.22%) there was a mild aortic insufficiency. The median of the maximum gradient on aortic valve (AV) was 60 mm Hg (from 20 to 140 mm Hg).
Results. The maximum gradient on discharge and in the long-term period remained at the level of 33±13.3 and 37.8±23.7, respectively. Aortic insufficiency (AI) increased significantly during the follow-up period. In the long-term period without insufficiency there was only 1 (3.2%) patient. Hospital mortality was observed in 1 (3.2%) case. The follow-up period for the patients of the study group was 61.2±22.4 months. During this time, 13 (43.3%) patients underwent 17 reoperations on the aortic valve.
Conclusions. Newborns after balloon valvuloplasty are susceptible to significant progression of AI. Within 5 years, 42% of the patients were reoperated. Valve replacement was performed in 16.7% of surviving patients during the follow-up period.
Key words: aortic stenosis, balloon valvuloplasty, newborns.

References

1. Agnoletti G, Raisky O, Boudjemline Y, Ou P, Bonnet D, Sidi D, Vouhé P. (2006, Nov). Neonatal surgical aortic commissurotomy: predictors of outcome and long-term results. Ann Thorac Surg. 82(5): 1585–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2006.05.049; PMid:17062209

2. Balmer C, Beghetti M, Fasnacht M, Friedli B, Arbenz U. (2004, Jan). Balloon aortic valvoplasty in paediatric patients: progressive aortic regurgitation is common. Heart Br Card Soc. 90(1): 77–81. https://doi.org/10.1136/heart.90.1.77; PMid:14676250 PMCid:PMC1768038

3. Gaynor JW, Bull C, Sullivan ID, Armstrong BE, Deanfield JE, Taylor JF, Rees PG, Ungerleider RM, de Leval MR, Stark J. (1995, Jun). Late outcome of survivors of intervention for neonatal aortic valve stenosis. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery. 60(1): 122—125. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-4975(95)00384-3

4. Hill GD, Ginde S, Rios R, Frommelt PC, Hill KD. (2016, Aug 8). Surgical Valvotomy Versus Balloon Valvuloplasty for Congenital Aortic Valve Stenosis: ASystematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Am Heart Assoc. 5(8). https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.116.003931

5. Maskatia SA, Ing FF, Justino H et al. (2011, Oct 1). Twenty-five year experience with balloon aortic valvuloplasty for congenital aortic stenosis. Am J Cardiol. 108(7): 1024—8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2011.05.040; PMid:21791328

6. Mitchell BJ, Brown SC. (2014). Management of severe aortic valve stenosis in the neonate. Journal of the South African Heart Association. 11; 1.

7. Weber HS, Mart CR, Myers JL. (2000). Transcarotid balloon valvuloplasty for critical aortic valve stenosis at the bedside via continuous transesophageal echocardiographic guidance. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 50(3): 326—9. https://doi.org/10.1002/1522-726X(200007)50:3<326::AID-CCD11>3.0.CO;2-T