An analysis of patients requiring unifocalization revision following midline unifocalization for pulmonary atresia with ventricular septal defect and major aortopulmonary collaterals. (13th February 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Mainwaring, Richard D; Patrick, William L; Ma, Michael; Hanley, Frank L
• Is Part Of: European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery. Volume 54:Number 1(2018)
• Page Start: 63
• Page End: 70
• Publication Date: 2018-02-13
• Subjects: Congenital heart disease -- Pulmonary artery -- Pulmonary valve; Heart -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Chest -- Surgery -- Periodicals; 617.54
• DOI: 10.1093/ejcts/ezy017
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1010-7940

Abstract

Abstract: OBJECTIVES: Midline unifocalization has been developed for the surgical treatment of pulmonary atresia with ventricular septal defect and major aortopulmonary collateral arteries. All patients will eventually require reoperation because of the presence of a conduit, and some patients may also require revision of the distal unifocalized bed. The purpose of this study was to analyse the need for unifocalization revision following midline unifocalization. METHODS: This was a retrospective review of 241 patients who underwent midline unifocalization for the treatment of pulmonary atresia with ventricular septal defect and major aortopulmonary collateral arteries. Two hundred and four (85.4%) patients had a single-stage complete repair, whereas 37 patients had a unifocalization and placement of a central shunt. Seventy-eight patients have subsequently undergone reoperations at our institution, including 44 operations that required unifocalization revision. These 44 patients were compared with the 191 operative survivors who did not require revision. RESULTS: An analysis of risk factors for requiring unifocalization revision included the following: (i) single-stage complete repair versus unifocalization and shunt (14.7% vs 37.8%, P < 0.001), (ii) right ventricle to aortic pressure ratio at the initial repair (0.33 ± 0.07 vs 0.44 ± 0.08, P < 0.001) and (iii) absence of central pulmonary arteries (32.8% vs 13.4%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Data demonstrate that 44 of 241 (18%) patients who underwent midline unifocalization have subsequently required revision of their unifocalization. The need for unifocalization revision was associated with 3 factors, all of which were known at the time of discharge from the initial unifocalization. These data suggest that potentially higher risk patients should be monitored more closely than their lower risk counterparts.