van den Bosch Eva, Bossers Sjoerd S M, Bogers Ad J J C, Robbers-Visser Daniëlle, van Dijk Arie P J, Roos-Hesselink Jolien W, Breur Hans M P J, Haas Felix, Kapusta Livia, Helbing Willem A
Division of Paediatric Cardiology, Department of Paediatrics, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Department of Radiology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2019 Sep 1;29(3):453-460. doi: 10.1093/icvts/ivz081.
Our goals were to compare the outcome of the intra-atrial lateral tunnel (ILT) and the extracardiac conduit (ECC) techniques for staged total cavopulmonary connection (TCPC) and to compare the current modifications of the TCPC technique, i.e. the prosthetic ILT technique with the current ECC technique with a ≥18-mm conduit.
We included patients who had undergone a staged TCPC between 1988 and 2008. Records were reviewed for patient demographics, operative details and events during follow-up (death, surgical and catheter-based reinterventions and arrhythmias).
Of the 208 patients included, 103 had the ILT (51 baffle, 52 prosthetic) technique and 105 had the ECC technique. Median follow-up duration was 13.2 years (interquartile range 9.5-16.3). At 15 years after the TCPC, the overall survival rate was comparable (81% ILT vs 89% ECC; P = 0.12). Freedom from late surgical and catheter-based reintervention was higher for patients who had ILT than for those who had ECC (63% vs 44%; P = 0.016). However, freedom from late arrhythmia was lower for patients who had ILT than for those who had ECC (71% vs 85%, P = 0.034). In a subgroup of patients who had the current TCPC technique, when we compared the use of a prosthetic ILT with ≥18-mm ECC, we found no differences in freedom from late arrhythmias (82% vs 86%, P = 0.64) or in freedom from late reinterventions (70% vs 52%, P = 0.14).
A comparison between the updated prosthetic ILT and current ≥18-mm ECC techniques revealed no differences in late arrhythmia-free survival or late reintervention-free survival. Overall, outcomes after the staged TCPC were relatively good and reinterventions occurred more frequently in the ECC group, whereas late arrhythmias were more common in the ILT group.
我们的目标是比较心房内侧面隧道(ILT)和心外管道(ECC)技术用于分期全腔静脉肺动脉连接术(TCPC)的结果,并比较TCPC技术的当前改良方法,即人工ILT技术与使用≥18mm管道的当前ECC技术。
我们纳入了1988年至2008年间接受分期TCPC的患者。回顾记录以获取患者人口统计学资料、手术细节以及随访期间的事件(死亡、手术及基于导管的再次干预和心律失常)。
在纳入的208例患者中,103例采用ILT(51例使用挡板,52例使用人工材料)技术,105例采用ECC技术。中位随访时间为13.2年(四分位间距9.5 - 16.3年)。在TCPC术后15年,总体生存率相当(ILT组为81%,ECC组为89%;P = 0.12)。接受ILT的患者免于晚期手术及基于导管的再次干预的比例高于接受ECC的患者(63%对44%;P = 0.016)。然而,接受ILT的患者免于晚期心律失常的比例低于接受ECC的患者(71%对85%,P = 0.034)。在采用当前TCPC技术的患者亚组中,当我们比较人工ILT与≥18mm ECC的使用情况时,我们发现免于晚期心律失常(82%对86%,P = 0.64)或免于晚期再次干预(70%对52%,P = 0.14)方面没有差异。
更新后的人工ILT与当前≥18mm ECC技术之间的比较显示,在免于晚期心律失常生存或免于晚期再次干预生存方面没有差异。总体而言,分期TCPC术后的结果相对良好,ECC组再次干预更频繁,而ILT组晚期心律失常更常见。