Pulmonary artery growth in Fontan: What is the most effective strategy?

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q2 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
N. Derridj, M. Hily, L. Houyel, S. Malekzadeh-Milani, D. Bonnet
{"title":"Pulmonary artery growth in Fontan: What is the most effective strategy?","authors":"N. Derridj,&nbsp;M. Hily,&nbsp;L. Houyel,&nbsp;S. Malekzadeh-Milani,&nbsp;D. Bonnet","doi":"10.1016/j.acvd.2024.07.035","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>The best strategy to achieve optimal growth of pulmonary artery branches (PAs) in functionally univentricular heart (FUH) between partial cavopulmonary connection (PCPC) and total cavopulmonary connection (TCPC) is still controversial, especially the preservation of anterograde pulmonary blood flow (APBF).</p></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To model the growth of PA in FUH between PCPC and TCPC and to assess whether APBF promotes this growth. Then to determine whether the maintenance of an APBF is associated with higher morbidity and mortality.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We retrospectively included all patients with FUH who underwent cardiac catheterization before PCPC and TCPC between 2004 and 2021. A linear regression model was used to model PA growth. We compared mortality and morbidity outcomes between the APBF group and no APBF group using the Kaplan–Meier method.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>In total, 118 children with FUH with a median follow-up of 8.8<!--> <!-->years were included, 49 (41.5%) had maintained APBF. PA branch growth can be considered continuous and linear over time [fractional polynomials (<em>P</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.2)], estimated at β<!--> <!-->=<!--> <!-->8.5 [0.7–16.2] mm<sup>2</sup>/year. In multivariate analysis, maintaining an APBF was the only factor associated with increased PA branch growth [β<!--> <!-->=<!--> <!-->55.9 (21.8; 90) mm<sup>2</sup> (<em>P</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.01)], regardless of TCPC timing (<span><span>Fig. 1</span></span>). Before PCPC, there was no difference in mean pulmonary artery pressure (mPAP) between groups with and without APBF. Between PCPC and TCPC, there was no significant increase in mPAP [13.2 (12–16) vs. 14.1 (12.4–15.8), <em>P</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.3] or transpulmonary pressure gradient [7.2 (5.2–9.3) vs. 6.9 (4.6–9.1), <em>P</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.6] in the APBF group. There was no difference in survival at 6<!--> <!-->years after TCPC between the group with APBF [87.6, 95% CI (65.6%–95.9%)] and the group without APBF [82.3 95% CI (67.8–90.6)]. No difference was also found when comparing morbidity characteristics between the two groups, such as length of hospital stay after TCPC (<em>P</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.7), chylothorax (<em>P</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.81), hemodynamic contraindications to fenestration closure (<em>P</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.9), failing Fontan rate (<em>P</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.38).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>PAs growth between PCPC and TCPC is significant and can be considered linear over time. By maintaining APBF, growth potential can be achieved much more quickly and without additional risk of morbidity or mortality.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":55472,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Cardiovascular Diseases","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Cardiovascular Diseases","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1875213624002560","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

The best strategy to achieve optimal growth of pulmonary artery branches (PAs) in functionally univentricular heart (FUH) between partial cavopulmonary connection (PCPC) and total cavopulmonary connection (TCPC) is still controversial, especially the preservation of anterograde pulmonary blood flow (APBF).

Objective

To model the growth of PA in FUH between PCPC and TCPC and to assess whether APBF promotes this growth. Then to determine whether the maintenance of an APBF is associated with higher morbidity and mortality.

Methods

We retrospectively included all patients with FUH who underwent cardiac catheterization before PCPC and TCPC between 2004 and 2021. A linear regression model was used to model PA growth. We compared mortality and morbidity outcomes between the APBF group and no APBF group using the Kaplan–Meier method.

Results

In total, 118 children with FUH with a median follow-up of 8.8 years were included, 49 (41.5%) had maintained APBF. PA branch growth can be considered continuous and linear over time [fractional polynomials (P = 0.2)], estimated at β = 8.5 [0.7–16.2] mm2/year. In multivariate analysis, maintaining an APBF was the only factor associated with increased PA branch growth [β = 55.9 (21.8; 90) mm2 (P = 0.01)], regardless of TCPC timing (Fig. 1). Before PCPC, there was no difference in mean pulmonary artery pressure (mPAP) between groups with and without APBF. Between PCPC and TCPC, there was no significant increase in mPAP [13.2 (12–16) vs. 14.1 (12.4–15.8), P = 0.3] or transpulmonary pressure gradient [7.2 (5.2–9.3) vs. 6.9 (4.6–9.1), P = 0.6] in the APBF group. There was no difference in survival at 6 years after TCPC between the group with APBF [87.6, 95% CI (65.6%–95.9%)] and the group without APBF [82.3 95% CI (67.8–90.6)]. No difference was also found when comparing morbidity characteristics between the two groups, such as length of hospital stay after TCPC (P = 0.7), chylothorax (P = 0.81), hemodynamic contraindications to fenestration closure (P = 0.9), failing Fontan rate (P = 0.38).

Conclusion

PAs growth between PCPC and TCPC is significant and can be considered linear over time. By maintaining APBF, growth potential can be achieved much more quickly and without additional risk of morbidity or mortality.

丰坦手术中的肺动脉生长:最有效的策略是什么?
引言 在部分腔肺连接(PCPC)和全腔肺连接(TCPC)之间,实现功能性单心室心脏(FUH)肺动脉分支(PA)最佳生长的最佳策略仍存在争议,尤其是保留前向肺血流(APBF)。然后确定 APBF 的维持是否与较高的发病率和死亡率相关。方法我们回顾性纳入了 2004 年至 2021 年期间在 PCPC 和 TCPC 之前接受心导管检查的所有 FUH 患者。采用线性回归模型来模拟 PA 的增长。我们采用 Kaplan-Meier 法比较了 APBF 组和无 APBF 组的死亡率和发病率。结果共纳入了 118 例 FUH 儿童,中位随访时间为 8.8 年,其中 49 例(41.5%)保持了 APBF。随着时间的推移,PA分支的生长可被认为是连续和线性的[分数多项式(P = 0.2)],估计为β = 8.5 [0.7-16.2] mm2/年。在多变量分析中,保持 APBF 是唯一与 PA 支生长增加相关的因素 [β = 55.9 (21.8; 90) mm2 (P = 0.01)],与 TCPC 时间无关(图 1)。在 PCPC 之前,有 APBF 组和没有 APBF 组的平均肺动脉压(mPAP)没有差异。在 PCPC 和 TCPC 之间,APBF 组的 mPAP [13.2 (12-16) vs. 14.1 (12.4-15.8),P = 0.3] 或跨肺压力梯度 [7.2 (5.2-9.3) vs. 6.9 (4.6-9.1),P = 0.6] 没有明显增加。使用 APBF 组[87.6,95% CI (65.6%-95.9%)]与未使用 APBF 组[82.3,95% CI (67.8-90.6)]的 TCPC 术后 6 年生存率没有差异。在比较两组的发病率特征时也未发现差异,如 TCPC 后的住院时间(P = 0.7)、乳糜胸(P = 0.81)、瘘口闭合的血流动力学禁忌症(P = 0.9)、Fontan 失败率(P = 0.38)。通过保持 APBF,可以更快地实现生长潜力,且不会增加发病或死亡风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Archives of Cardiovascular Diseases
Archives of Cardiovascular Diseases 医学-心血管系统
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
6.70%
发文量
87
审稿时长
34 days
期刊介绍: The Journal publishes original peer-reviewed clinical and research articles, epidemiological studies, new methodological clinical approaches, review articles and editorials. Topics covered include coronary artery and valve diseases, interventional and pediatric cardiology, cardiovascular surgery, cardiomyopathy and heart failure, arrhythmias and stimulation, cardiovascular imaging, vascular medicine and hypertension, epidemiology and risk factors, and large multicenter studies. Archives of Cardiovascular Diseases also publishes abstracts of papers presented at the annual sessions of the Journées Européennes de la Société Française de Cardiologie and the guidelines edited by the French Society of Cardiology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信