Surgical Valvotomy Versus Balloon Valvuloplasty for Congenital Aortic Valve Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

dc.contributor.author

Hill, Garick D

dc.contributor.author

Ginde, Salil

dc.contributor.author

Rios, Rodrigo

dc.contributor.author

Frommelt, Peter C

dc.contributor.author

Hill, Kevin D

dc.coverage.spatial

England

dc.date.accessioned

2017-02-01T15:48:40Z

dc.date.issued

2016-08-08

dc.description.abstract

BACKGROUND: Optimal initial treatment for congenital aortic valve stenosis in children remains unclear between balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV) and surgical aortic valvotomy (SAV). METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a contemporary systematic review and meta-analysis to compare survival in children with congenital aortic valve stenosis. Secondary outcomes included frequency of at least moderate regurgitation at hospital discharge as well as rates of aortic valve replacement and reintervention. Single- and dual-arm studies were identified by a search of PubMed (Medline), Embase, and the Cochrane database. Overall 2368 patients from 20 studies were included in the analysis, including 1835 (77%) in the BAV group and 533 (23%) in the SAV group. There was no difference between SAV and BAV in hospital mortality (OR=0.98, 95% CI 0.5-2.0, P=0.27, I(2)=22%) or frequency of at least moderate aortic regurgitation at discharge (OR=0.58, 95% CI 0.3-1.3, P=0.09, I(2)=54%). Kaplan-Meier analysis showed no difference in long-term survival or freedom from aortic valve replacement but significantly more reintervention in the BAV group (10-year freedom from reintervention of 46% [95% CI 40-52] for BAV versus 73% [95% CI 68-77] for SAV, P<0.001). Results were unchanged in a sensitivity analysis restricted to infants (<1 year of age). CONCLUSIONS: Although higher rates of reintervention suggest improved outcomes with SAV, indications for reintervention may vary depending on initial intervention. When considering the benefits of a less-invasive approach, and clinical equipoise with respect to more clinically relevant outcomes, these findings support the need for a randomized controlled trial.

dc.identifier

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27503847

dc.identifier

JAHA.116.003931

dc.identifier.eissn

2047-9980

dc.identifier.uri

https://hdl.handle.net/10161/13548

dc.language

eng

dc.publisher

Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)

dc.relation.ispartof

J Am Heart Assoc

dc.relation.isversionof

10.1161/JAHA.116.003931

dc.subject

aortic surgery

dc.subject

aortic valve stenosis

dc.subject

balloon aortic valvuloplasty

dc.subject

congenital heart defects

dc.subject

meta‐analysis

dc.title

Surgical Valvotomy Versus Balloon Valvuloplasty for Congenital Aortic Valve Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

dc.type

Journal article

pubs.author-url

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27503847

pubs.issue

8

pubs.organisational-group

Clinical Science Departments

pubs.organisational-group

Duke

pubs.organisational-group

Duke Clinical Research Institute

pubs.organisational-group

Institutes and Centers

pubs.organisational-group

Pediatrics

pubs.organisational-group

Pediatrics, Cardiology

pubs.organisational-group

School of Medicine

pubs.publication-status

Published online

pubs.volume

5

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Surgical Valvotomy Versus Balloon Valvuloplasty for Congenital Aortic Valve Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.pdf
Size:
862.81 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format