12
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Results of the arterial switch operation in neonates with transposed great arteries

      , , , , , ,

      The Lancet

      Elsevier BV

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The arterial switch operation is judged the best palliative operation for neonates with transposed great arteries. We aimed to assess the value of analysing a large series of unselected cases by this technically demanding operation and formulate a realistic prognosis. We reviewed all 432 neonates (mean age at operation 7 days, mean weight 3.25 kg) who underwent an arterial switch operation between 1987 and 1999. Follow-up (mean time: 4.9 years) was complete in 412 patients. Survival probability and freedom from reoperation was 94% and 78% at 10 years, respectively. 26 patients died, 16 because of myocardial ischaemia. Risk factors for death included early experience, low weight, associated cardiovascular malformations (especially hypoplasia of the right ventricle or aortic arch), and difficult patterns of coronary arteries. The risk of the coronary artery pattern was greatly reduced in those who had recent operations. At last follow-up, 90% of patients had normal life without treatment, and 94% a normal heart function on echocardiography. The arterial switch operation in neonates achieves excellent results mid-term. Obstruction of the translocated coronary arteries is responsible for most deaths and a substantial number of reoperations. Although confirmation is needed, these results allow anticipation of a favourable long-term prognosis.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          The Lancet
          The Lancet
          Elsevier BV
          01406736
          June 2001
          June 2001
          : 357
          : 9271
          : 1826-1830
          Article
          10.1016/S0140-6736(00)04957-6
          11410190
          1224c93c-39fd-4a53-9e12-f65299be0e3c
          © 2001

          Comments

          Comment on this article