No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Outcomes after bidirectional cavopulmonary shunt with antegrade pulmonary blood flow in high-risk patients
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 September 2024
Abstract
Objective:
We have left antegrade pulmonary blood flow (APBF) at bidirectional cavopulmonary shunt (BCPS) only for high-risk patients. This study evaluates the indication and the outcomes of patients with APBF, compared to those without APBF.
Methods:
Patients with APBF after BCPS were identified among patients who underwent BCPS between 1997 and 2022. Outcomes of patients with and without APBF after BCPS were compared.
Results:
APBF was open in 38 (8.2%) of 461 patients. Median age (7.7 versus 6.3 months, p = 0.55) and weight (5.6 versus 6.1 kg, p = 0.75) at BCPS were similar in both groups. The most frequent indication for APBF was high pulmonary artery pressure (PAP) in 14 patients, followed by hypoxaemia in 10, and hypoplastic left pulmonary artery in 8. The source of APBF was the pulmonary trunk in 10 patients and the aortopulmonary shunt in 28. Median hospital stay after BCPS was longer (22 versus 14 days, p = 0.018) and hospital mortality was higher (10.5 versus 2.1%, p = 0.003) in patients with APBF compared to those without APBF. However, 448 hospital survivors showed similar survival after discharge following BCPS (p = 0.224). Survival after total cavopulmonary connection (TCPC) was similar between the groups (p = 0.753), although patients with APBF were older at TCPC compared to those without (3.9 versus 2.2 years, p = 0.010).
Conclusion:
APBF was left in 8% following BCPS in high-risk patients, mainly due to preoperative high PAP. Hospital survivors after BCPS demonstrated comparable survival in patients with and without APBF. Adding APBF at BCPS might be a useful option for high-risk patients.
Keywords
- Type
- Original Article
- Information
- Copyright
- © German Heart Center Munich, 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press
Footnotes
Meeting presentation: Oral presentation at the 53rd Annual Meeting of the German Society of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Hamburg, Germany, February 17-19, 2024.
References
Ono, M, Burri, M, Mayr, B, et al. Risk factors for failed fontan procedure following stage 2 palliation. Ann Thorac Surg 2021; 112: 610–618.Google Scholar
Lee, TM, Aiyagari, R, Hirsch, JC, Ohye, RG, Bove, EL, Devaney, EJ. Risk factor analysis for second-stage palliation of single ventricle anatomy. Ann Thorac Surg 2012; 93: 614–618.Google Scholar
Tan, AM, Iyengar, AJ, Donath, S, et al. Fontan completion rate and outcomes after bidirectional cavo-pulmonary shunt. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2010; 38: 59–65.Google Scholar
Frommelt, MA, Frommelt, PC, Berger, S, et al. Does anadditional source of pulmonary blood flow alter outcomeafter a bidirectional cavopulmonary shunt? Circulation 1995; 92: I240–4.Google Scholar
Webber, SA, Horvath, P, LeBlanc, JG, et al. Influence of competitive pulmonary blood flow on the bidirectionalsuperior cavopulmonary shunt. A multi-institutional study. Circulation 1995; 92:I279–I286.Google Scholar
Mainwaring, RD, Lamberti, JJ, Uzark, K, Spicer, RL. Bidirectional Glenn. Is accessory pulmonary blood flow good or bad? Circulation 1995; 92: II294–II297.Google Scholar
McElhinney, DB, Marianeschi, SM, Reddy, VM. Additional pulmonary blood flow with the bidirectional Glenn anastomosis: does it make a difference? Ann Thorac Surg 1998; 66:668–672.Google Scholar
Mainwaring, RD, Lamberti, JJ, Uzark, K, Spicer, RL, Cocalis, MW, Moore, JW. Effect of accessory pulmonary blood flow on survival after the bidirectional glenn procedure. Circulation 1999; 100: II151–II156.Google Scholar
Caspi, J, Pettitt, TW, Ferguson, TB Jr, Stopa, AR, Sandhu, SK. Effects of controlled antegrade pulmonary blood flow on cardiacfunction after bidirectional cavopulmonary anastomosis. Ann Thorac Surg 2003; 76: 1917–1921.Google Scholar
Berdat, PA, Belli, E, Lacour-Gayet, F, Planché, C, Serraf, A. Additional pulmonary blood flow has no adverse effect on outcome after bidirectional cavopulmonary anastomosis. Ann Thorac Surg 2005; 79: 29–36.Google Scholar
Yoshida, M, Yamaguchi, M, Yoshimura, N, Murakami, H, Matsuhisa, H, Okita, Y. Appropriate additional pulmonary blood flow at the bidirectional Glenn procedure is useful for completion of total cavopulmonary connection. Ann Thorac Surg 2005; 80: 976–981.Google Scholar
Gray, RG, Altmann, K, Mosca, RS, et al. Persistent antegrade pulmonary blood flow post-glenn does not alter early post-Fontan outcomes in single-ventricle patients. Ann Thorac Surg 2007; 84: 888–893.Google Scholar
Ferns, SJ, El Zein, C, Multani, K, et al. Is additional pulsatile pulmonary blood flow beneficial to patients with bidirectional Glenn? J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2013; 145: 451–454.Google Scholar
Chen, Q, Tulloh, R, Caputo, M, Stoica, S, Kia, M, Parry, AJ. Does the persistence of pulsatile antegrade pulmonary blood flow following bidirectional Glenn procedure affect long term outcome? Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2015; 47: 154–158.Google Scholar
Alghamdi, AA. Bidirectional Glenn with additional pulmonary blood flow: systematic review and evidence-based recommendations. J Card Surg 2015; 30: 724–730.Google Scholar
Sughimoto, K, Zannino, D, Mathew, J, et al. Forward flow through the pulmonary valve after bidirectional cavopulmonary shunt benefits patients at Fontan operation. Ann Thorac Surg 2015; 100: 1390–1396.Google Scholar
Yan, T, Tong, G, Zhang, B, et al. The effect of antegrade pulmonary blood flow following a late bidirectional Glenn procedure. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2018; 26: 454–459.Google Scholar
Dietzman, TW, Soria, S, DePaolo, J, et al. Influence of antegrade pulmonary blood flow on outcomes of superior cavopulmonary connection. Ann Thorac Surg 2022; 114: 1771–1777.Google Scholar
Davidson, H, Zannino, D, d’Udekem, Y, et al. Does leaving native antegrade pulmonary blood flow at the time of the superior cavopulmonary connection impact long-term outcomes after the Fontan? JTCVS Open 2023; 16: 825–835.Google Scholar
Henaine, R, Vergnat, M, Mercier, O, et al. Hemodynamics and arteriovenous malformations in cavopulmonary anastomosis: the case for residual antegrade pulsatile flow. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2013; 146: 1359–1365.Google Scholar
Hickey, EJ, Alghamdi, AA, Elmi, M, et al. Systemic arteriovenous fistulae for end-stage cyanosis after cavopulmonary connection: a useful bridge to transplantation. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2010; 139: 128–134.Google Scholar
Schreiber, C, Cleuziou, J, Cornelsen, JK, Hörer, J, Eicken, A, Lange, R. Bidirectional cavopulmonary connection without additional pulmonary blood flow as an ideal staging for functional univentricular hearts. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2008; 34: 550–554.Google Scholar
Ono, M, Burri, M, Mayr, B, et al. Risk factors for failed Fontan procedure after Stage 2 Palliation. Ann Thorac Surg 2021; 112: 610–618.Google Scholar
Euringer, C, Kido, T, Ruf, B, et al. Management of failing bidirectional cavopulmonary shunt: influence of additional systemic-to-pulmonary-artery shunt with classic Glenn physiology. JTCVS Open 2022; 11: 373–387.Google Scholar
Bridges, ND, Jonas, RA, Mayer, JE, Flanagan, MF, Keane, JF, Castaneda, AR. Bidirectional cavopulmonary anastomosis as interim palliation for high-risk Fontan candidates
. Early results. Circulation 1990; 82 (5 Suppl): IV170–176.Google Scholar
Freedom, RM, Nykanen, D, Benson, LN. The physiology of the bidirectional cavopulmonary connection. Ann Thorac Surg 1998; 66: 664–667.Google Scholar
Mahle, WT, Wernovsky, G, Bridges, ND, Linton, AB, Paridon, SM. Impact of early ventricular unloading on exercise performance in preadolescents with single ventricle Fontan physiology. J Am Coll Cardiol 1999; 34: 1637–1643.Google Scholar
Ono, M, Kasnar-Samprec, J, Hager, A, et al. Clinical outcome following total cavopulmonary connection: a 20-year single-centre experience. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2016; 50: 632–641.Google Scholar
Behrend et al. supplementary material 1
Behrend et al. supplementary material
File
229.6 KB
Behrend et al. supplementary material 2
Behrend et al. supplementary material
File
143.8 KB
Behrend et al. supplementary material 3
Behrend et al. supplementary material
File
101.8 KB
Behrend et al. supplementary material 4
Behrend et al. supplementary material
File
117.6 KB
Behrend et al. supplementary material 5
Behrend et al. supplementary material
File
48 KB
Behrend et al. supplementary material 6
Behrend et al. supplementary material
File
19.7 KB