Cited by 140Cardiac Valve Diseases and TreatmentsAortic Disease and Treatment ApproachesCongenital Heart Disease Studies

Outcome after aortic valve replacement in children: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access
Etnel, Jonathan R.G., Elmont, Lisa C., Ertekin, Ebru, Mokhles, M. Mostafa, Heuvelman, Helena J., Roos-Hesselink, Jolien W., de Jong, Peter L., Helbing, Willem A. +2 more·2016·The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery

Abstract

Objective Despite an increasing interest in pediatric aortic valve repair, aortic valve replacement in children may be unavoidable. The evidence on outcome after pediatric aortic valve replacement is limited and usually reported in small case series. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to provide an overview of reported outcome of pediatric patients after aortic valve replacement. Methods A systematic literature search for publications reporting outcome after pediatric aortic valve replacement published between January 1990 and May 2015 was conducted. Studies written in English with a study size of more than 30 patients were included. Results Thirty-four publications reporting on 42 cohorts were included in this review: 26 concerning the Ross procedure (n = 2409), 13 concerning mechanical prosthesis aortic valve replacement (n = 696), and 3 concerning homograft aortic valve replacement (n = 224). There were no studies on bioprostheses that met our inclusion criteria. The pooled mean patient age was 9.4 years, 12.8 years, and 8.9 years for Ross, mechanical prosthesis, and homograft recipients, respectively. Pooled mean follow-up was 6.6 years. The Ross procedure was associated with lower early (4.20%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.37-5.22 vs 7.34%; 95% CI, 5.21-10.34 vs 12.82%; 95% CI, 8.91-18.46) and late mortality (0.64%/y; 95% CI, 0.49-0.84 vs 1.23%/y; 95% CI, 0.85-1.79 vs 1.59%/y; 95% CI, 1.03-2.46) compared with mechanical prosthesis aortic valve replacement and homograft aortic valve replacement, respectively. No significantly different aortic valve reoperation rates were observed between the Ross procedure and mechanical prosthesis aortic valve replacement (1.60%/y; 95% CI, 1.27-2.02 vs 1.07%/y; 95% CI, 0.68-1.68, respectively), whereas homograft aortic valve replacement was associated with significantly higher aortic valve reoperation rates (5.44%/y; 95% CI, 4.24-6.98). The Ross procedure-associated right ventricular outflow tract reoperation rate was 1.91% per year (95% CI, 1.50-2.44). Conclusions This systematic review illustrates that all currently available aortic valve substitutes are associated with suboptimal results in children, reflecting the urgent need for reliable and durable repair techniques and innovative replacement solutions for this challenging group of patients.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2015.09.083

Cites

71 of 71 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • ECM bioscaffolds provide an alternative to congenital infant defects such as those related to heart valves, given their prominent integration with the host's tissue and prevention of inflammation.

    “On the other hand, ECM bioscaffolds provide an alternative to congenital infant defects such as those related to heart valves [209,210], given their prominent integration with the host's tissue and prevention of inflammation.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 74 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Etnel, J. R. G., Elmont, L. C., Ertekin, E., Mokhles, M. M., Heuvelman, H. J., Roos-Hesselink, J. W., de Jong, P. L., Helbing, W. A., Bogers, A. J. J. C., & Takkenberg, J. J. M.
Affiliations
Erasmus MC (NL)
Corresponding author
Takkenberg, Johanna J.M.
Venue
The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-01
Volume
151
Issue
1
Pages
143-152.e3
ISSN
0022-5223 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2113018842
Cited by
140
References
74
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2012: 3
FWCI
1.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Aortic Disease and Treatment Approaches
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Congenital Heart Disease Studies
Keywords
Ross procedure, mechanical aortic valve prosthesis, mortality, aortic valve reoperation, long-term outcomes, congenital heart disease
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Age Factors, Aortic Valve, Child, Child, Preschool, Heart Valve Diseases, Heart Valve Prosthesis, Hemodynamics, Humans, Infant, Postoperative Complications, Prosthesis Design, Reoperation, Risk Factors, Time Factors, Chi-Square Distribution, Treatment Outcome, Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation, Allografts

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review