Long-term survival after repair of atrioventricular septal defect
T. Ebels,J. Gaynor
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1047951104001027
2004-02-01
Cardiology in the Young
Abstract:THE TWO PAPERS PUBLISHED IN THIS ISSUE, BY the ladies Frid and Dunlop, along with their respective colleagues in Sweden and Northern Ireland, on long-term survival after repair of atrioventricular septal defect mark the accomplishments in the last decades of dealing with this anomaly.1,2 Additionally, these papers demonstrate the value of follow-up studies being long term in the evolution of paediatric cardiac surgery. It is the feedback provided by these long-term studies that should effectively influence our surgical handling in order to optimise treatment. The other essential element in both papers is that all patients born with atrioventricular septal defect are included, instead of reporting only patients that have been operated. The information on patients not undergoing surgery upon is crucial in completing the picture painted to depict the fate of patients born with atrioventricular septal defect. The monumental Swedish paper deals with no less than all 801 patients with atrioventricular septal defect and shunting at both atrial and ventricular levels, born in that country from 1973 through 1997. As far as we are aware, this is the largest follow-up study in world history. These 801 patients were subdivided into a group of 47 patients with restrictive interventricular shunting, and 754 patients with no restriction to shunting at the ventricular level. This latter group was divided into a group of 502 patients with an isolated defect, and a group of 247 patients with a “complex” defect, by which they mean having additional anomalies other than arterial duct, oval fossa or extra ventricular septal defect. The study from Northern Ireland deals with 106 patients born with atrioventricular septal defect in that area over the 9-year period from 1990 through 1998. These authors also distinguish between restrictive and non-restrictive interventricular shunting, using the value of a pressure difference between the ventricle of 30 mmHg as the cut-off point. This division into subgroups depending on the velocity of flow, or the calculated pressure gradient, of the interventricular shunt has some appeal from a physiological standpoint, because the physiology of patients with restriction to flow is different, and thus so is their presentation. This difference in physiology prompted Weintraub and co-workers3 to identify this group as being “intermediate” in the spectrum of hearts with deficient atrioventricular septation. Whether or not this group is given a special name such as “intermediate”, separating this group has its drawbacks. Having sequestered them, the composition of the so-called “complete” group, in its turn, is influenced by their absence. Although this study is exceedingly interesting for this reason, it is somewhat difficult to compare the results to other series. The other drawback, however, of sequestering this group is the use of the term “intermediate” for its description. Various definitions exist for “intermediate” types, and also for types called “transistional”, so that there is considerable confusion in the literature.4,5 The confusion is such that the “intermediate” group defined by one set of investigators may well be dissimilar to that used by others. Indeed, at least five different concepts of an “intermediate form” exist, of which restriction to interventricular shunting is only one. The unfortunate aspect of this particular definition is that the gradient is not only dependent on the size of the interventricular communication. The gradient is also dependent on other haemodynamic variables, such as the absolute ventricular pressures and the right ventricular afterload. Editorial Comment