Stent or Shunt, What Could be Better for Children with Duct Dependent Pulmonary Circulation?

IF 0.7 Q4 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Journal of the Saudi Heart Association Pub Date : 2021-10-29 eCollection Date: 2021-01-01 DOI:10.37616/2212-5043.1274
Ghassan A Shaath, Abdulraouf Mz Jijeh, Mohammed Fararjeh, Mohammad Allugmani, Fahad Alhabshan, Mansour B Almutairi, Ahmed Alomrani, Omar Tamimi
{"title":"Stent or Shunt, What Could be Better for Children with Duct Dependent Pulmonary Circulation?","authors":"Ghassan A Shaath,&nbsp;Abdulraouf Mz Jijeh,&nbsp;Mohammed Fararjeh,&nbsp;Mohammad Allugmani,&nbsp;Fahad Alhabshan,&nbsp;Mansour B Almutairi,&nbsp;Ahmed Alomrani,&nbsp;Omar Tamimi","doi":"10.37616/2212-5043.1274","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Systemic to pulmonary shunt (Shunt) is offered for children with duct dependent pulmonary circulation to augment pulmonary flow. Recently patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) stent (Stent) is widely used as an alternative method. We aimed to compare post intervention outcomes in children underwent either procedure.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Infants under 3 months who had an initial palliation by Shunt or Stent were retrospectively reviewed between 2008 and 2016, then followed till the second intervention or 1 year whichever earlier.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>187 patients (110 Shunt and 77 Stent) were included. Initial weight and pulmonary artery (PA) branches size were similar between the groups. Shunt patients had more shock preoperatively and required more emergency intervention. Stent group showed less ICU stay 4 (1-8) vs 13 (7-23) days, <i>p</i> < 0.0001 and less positive pressure ventilation days 1 (0-2) vs 5.5 (3-11), <i>p</i> < 0.0001. However, Stent group had more symptomatic arterial and deep venous thromboses. In Stent patients the branch PAs growth was better and more homogeneous. At follow-up, no difference between groups regarding cumulative readmission days to hospital, hemoglobin levels and the weight percentile for age. Mortality was not different with a tendency to be higher in the Shunt group (13%) compared to the Stent group (5%), <i>p</i> 0.1.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The implantation of PDA stent in patients with duct dependent pulmonary circulation results in a smoother ICU course and a shorter hospital stay, with higher risk of vascular injury. Shunt and Stent procedures have a good outcome for PA growth, somatic growth and survival.</p>","PeriodicalId":17319,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Saudi Heart Association","volume":"33 4","pages":"306-312"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/17/69/sha-33-4-306.PMC8754443.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Saudi Heart Association","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.37616/2212-5043.1274","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Systemic to pulmonary shunt (Shunt) is offered for children with duct dependent pulmonary circulation to augment pulmonary flow. Recently patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) stent (Stent) is widely used as an alternative method. We aimed to compare post intervention outcomes in children underwent either procedure.

Methods: Infants under 3 months who had an initial palliation by Shunt or Stent were retrospectively reviewed between 2008 and 2016, then followed till the second intervention or 1 year whichever earlier.

Results: 187 patients (110 Shunt and 77 Stent) were included. Initial weight and pulmonary artery (PA) branches size were similar between the groups. Shunt patients had more shock preoperatively and required more emergency intervention. Stent group showed less ICU stay 4 (1-8) vs 13 (7-23) days, p < 0.0001 and less positive pressure ventilation days 1 (0-2) vs 5.5 (3-11), p < 0.0001. However, Stent group had more symptomatic arterial and deep venous thromboses. In Stent patients the branch PAs growth was better and more homogeneous. At follow-up, no difference between groups regarding cumulative readmission days to hospital, hemoglobin levels and the weight percentile for age. Mortality was not different with a tendency to be higher in the Shunt group (13%) compared to the Stent group (5%), p 0.1.

Conclusions: The implantation of PDA stent in patients with duct dependent pulmonary circulation results in a smoother ICU course and a shorter hospital stay, with higher risk of vascular injury. Shunt and Stent procedures have a good outcome for PA growth, somatic growth and survival.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

导管依赖性肺循环患儿支架或分流术,哪种治疗效果更好?
背景:系统到肺分流(分流)是提供给儿童导管依赖肺循环增加肺流量。近年来,动脉导管未闭(PDA)支架(stent)作为一种替代方法被广泛应用。我们的目的是比较接受两种手术的儿童的干预后结果。方法:回顾性分析2008年至2016年期间通过分流器或支架进行初始缓解的3个月以下婴儿,然后随访至第二次干预或1年,以较早者为准。结果:共纳入187例患者(分流110例,支架77例)。各组的初始体重和肺动脉(PA)分支大小相似。分流术患者术前休克较多,需要较多的紧急干预。支架组ICU住院时间4天(1 ~ 8天)比13天(7 ~ 23天)少,p < 0.0001;正压通气1天(0 ~ 2天)比5.5天(3 ~ 11天)少,p < 0.0001。然而,支架组有更多的症状性动脉和深静脉血栓形成。在支架患者中,分支PAs生长更好且更均匀。在随访中,两组在累计再入院天数、血红蛋白水平和年龄的体重百分位数方面没有差异。与支架组(5%)相比,分流组(13%)的死亡率有更高的趋势,p = 0.1。结论:导管依赖型肺循环患者行PDA支架置入术,ICU病程较平稳,住院时间较短,血管损伤风险较高。分流和支架手术对PA生长、体生长和存活有良好的效果。
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
Journal of the Saudi Heart Association
Journal of the Saudi Heart Association CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS-
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
30
审稿时长
15 weeks
×
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