BALLOON VALVULOPLASTY VERSUS SURGICAL VALVOTOMY FOR CONGENITAL AORTIC STENOSIS: SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

2021 ◽  
Vol 37 (10) ◽  
pp. S25-S26
Author(s):  
H Alraddadi ◽  
T Amir ◽  
D Barron ◽  
O Honjo
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Aortic Stenosis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Balloon Valvuloplasty ◽  
Congenital Aortic Stenosis

scholarly journals Rapid right ventricular pacing for balloon valvuloplasty in congenital aortic stenosis: A systematic review

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (11) ◽  
pp. 540-549
Author(s):  
Konstantinos S Mylonas ◽  
Ioannis A Ziogas ◽  
Charitini S Mylona ◽  
Dimitrios V Avgerinos ◽  
Christos Bakoyiannis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Aortic Stenosis ◽  
Right Ventricular ◽  
Balloon Valvuloplasty ◽  
Ventricular Pacing ◽  
Congenital Aortic Stenosis ◽  
Right Ventricular Pacing

Abstract 19440: Reintervention Rates Following Balloon Aortic Valvuloplasty versus Surgical Valve Repair in Isolated Congenital Aortic Valve Stenosis - A Meta-analysis

Circulation ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 132 (suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
May T Saung ◽  
Courtney McCracken ◽  
Ritu Sachdeva ◽  
Christopher J Petit
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Stenosis ◽  
Aortic Valve Stenosis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Valve Repair ◽  
Balloon Aortic Valvuloplasty ◽  
Congenital Aortic Stenosis ◽  
Primary Indication ◽  
Aortic Valvuloplasty

Introduction: The optimal treatment for congenital aortic stenosis (AS) is debated despite decades of experience with both balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV) and surgical aortic valve repair (SAV). While BAV has been the mainstay of therapy for AS, recent single-center reports suggest optimal results following SAV. Hypothesis: We propose that reintervention rates following SAV and BAV are equivalent. Methods: We queried Medline, EMBASE and Web of Science for eligible studies using the keywords: “congenital aortic stenosis”, “balloon valvotomy”, “aortic valve stenosis surgery” and “treatment outcome or reintervention”. Studies were excluded when cohort size was <20 pts, when follow-up was < 2.5 yrs from primary intervention, and when primary indication was not AS (e.g. SAV in the setting of aortic valve regurgitation (AR)). Outcomes analyzed included death, reintervention and moderate or severe AR. Analysis was performed using Comprehensive Meta Analysis v3 using random effects models. Results: A total of 20 studies were included in our meta-analysis: SAV alone (n=3), BAV alone (n=12), and both (n=5). The mean age at BAV was 3.1 years (range, 4 days - 7 years) with a mean follow-up duration of 6.8 years, while mean age at SAV was 2.8 years (range, 14.2 days - 7.1 years) with a mean follow-up duration of 9.1 years. Mortality rates following BAV and SAV were 12.3% (95% CI: 7.7 - 19.1) and 10.2% (95% CI: 7.0 - 14.5), respectively (p=0.27). Reintervention following initial procedure for treatment of AS was higher following BAV (35.7% [95% CI: 29 - 43.1]) compared to SAV (25.2% [95% CI: 19.9 - 31.3])(p=0.012). Long-term and mid-term follow-up in these studies showed moderate to severe AR was present in 24.1% and 28.1% of BAV and SAV patients, respectively. Conclusions: Notwithstanding publication bias, both survival rates and development of late AR following BAV and SAV are similar. However, reintervention rates are significantly higher following BAV compared to SAV.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document