Paediatric aortic valve replacement: a meta-analysis and microsimulation study

Abstract

Aims: To support decision-making in children undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR), by providing a comprehensive overview of published outcomes after paediatric AVR, and microsimulation-based age-specific estimates of outcome with different valve substitutes. Methods and results: A systematic review of published literature reporting clinical outcome after paediatric AVR (mean age <18 years) published between 1/1/1990 and 11/08/2021 was conducted. Publications reporting outcome after paediatric Ross procedure, mechanical AVR (mAVR), homograft AVR (hAVR), and/or bioprosthetic AVR were considered for inclusion. Early risks (<30d), late event rates (>30d) and time-to-event data were pooled and entered into a microsimulation model. Sixty-eight studies, of which one prospective and 67 retrospective cohort studies, were included, encompassing a total of 5259 patients (37 435 patient-years; median follow-up: 5.9 years; range 1-21 years). Pooled mean age for the Ross procedure, mAVR, and hAVR was 9.2 ± 5.6, 13.0 ± 3.4, and 8.4 ± 5.4 years, respectively. Pooled early mortality for the Ross procedure, mAVR, and hAVR was 3.7% (95% CI, 3.0%-4.7%), 7.0% (5.1%-9.6%), and 10.6% (6.6%-17.0%), respectively, and late mortality rate was 0.5%/year (0.4%-0.7%/year), 1.0%/year (0.6%-1.5%/year), and 1.4%/year (0.8%-2.5%/year), respectively. Microsimulation-based mean life-expectancy in the first 20 years was 18.9 years (18.6-19.1 years) after Ross (relative life-expectancy: 94.8%) and 17.0 years (16.5-17.6 years) after mAVR (relative life-expectancy: 86.3%). Microsimulation-based 20-year risk of aortic valve reintervention was 42.0% (95% CI: 39.6%-44.6%) after Ross and 17.8% (95% CI: 17.0%-19.4%) after mAVR. Conclusion: Results of paediatric AVR are currently suboptimal with substantial mortality especially in the very young with considerable reintervention hazards for all valve substitutes, but the Ross procedure provides a survival benefit over mAVR. Pros and cons of substitutes should be carefully weighed during paediatric valve selection.