Abstract
Background:
Xenografts used for right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT) reconstruction are typically treated with glutaraldehyde. However, potential benefit of epoxy treatment was demonstrated in experimental studies. We aimed to compare diepoxy-treated bovine pericardial valved conduits (DE-PVCs) and glutaraldehyde-treated bovine pericardial valved conduits (GA-PVCs) for RVOT reconstruction in pediatric patients.
Methods:
Between 2002 and 2017, 117 patients underwent RVOT reconstruction with PVC in single center: DE-PVC group, n = 39; and GA-PVC group, n = 78. After performing propensity score analysis (1:1) for the entire sample, 29 patients from the DE-PVC group were matched with 29 patients from the GA-PVC group.
Results:
There were no conduit-related deaths. In the DE-PVC group, the freedom from conduit failure was 90.9% at four years and 54.3% at eight years postoperatively. In the GA-PVC group, it was 46.3% and 33.1%, respectively. The difference was significant (P = .037). Conduit failure was typically caused by stenosis in both groups. In the DE-PVC group, the main cause of stenosis was xenograft calcification (27.6%); while in the GA-PVC group, it was mostly due to neointimal proliferation (25.0%) and, less often, calcification (14.3%). Conduit thrombosis was the cause of replacement in 6.9% of patients from the GA-PVC group.
Conclusions:
Diepoxy-treated bovine pericardial valved conduit is a suitable alternative to GA-PVC for RVOT reconstruction in pediatric patients. Diepoxy-treated bovine pericardial valved conduits may be less prone to conduit failure and more resistant to neointimal proliferation and conduit thrombosis than GA-PVCs.
Keywords
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
