There is significant variation in practice patterns in managing congenital aortic valve stenosis. Review of medical literature reveals no significant information regarding the current practice methods in the treatment of a simple lesion such as aortic stenosis (AS). Therefore, this survey-based study was conducted in an attempt to better understand the uniformity or heterogeneity of practice in treating AS. A questionnaire was prepared to evaluate the style of management of AS. This survey was designed to assess the practice of follow-up visitations, type and frequency of investigative studies, pharmacological therapy, and exercise recommendations. Questions about therapeutic intervention included those of timing and type of intervention. Questionnaires were sent to all academic pediatric cardiology programs in the United States (48 program) and selected international programs from Europe, Asia, and Australasia (19 program). The total number of surveys sent out was 67, and the total number of respondents was 25 (37%), 15 (31%) from the United States and 9 (53%) from outside the United States. The definition of moderate AS varied among respondents. The range provided for mild AS was identified as that with a peak-to-peak pressure gradient of < 25-30 mmHg, peak instantaneous Doppler gradient of < 36-50 mmHg, or mean Doppler gradient of < 25-40 mmHg. On the other hand, severe AS was defined as that with a peak-to-peak gradient of > 50-60 mmHg, peak instantaneous Doppler gradient of > 64-80 mmHg, or mean Doppler gradient of > 45-64 mmHg. In assessing follow-up patterns, 84% of respondents recommended seeing patients with mild AS annually, the longest time of follow-up listed in the questionnaire, whereas 20% suggested follow-up every 6 months. There was no consensus among survey centers regarding follow-up of patients with moderate AS. For severe AS, 16% recommend immediate intervention, 16% arrange follow-up every 6 months, and 56 and 28% recommend follow-up in 3 and 1 month(s), respectively. In making the decision to proceed with biventricular versus univentricular repair in patients with AS in the neonatal period, many factors were considered. Ninety-two percent of respondents rely on mitral valve z score, 84% on aortic valve z score, 52% on left ventricle length, 48% on the presence of antegrade ascending aorta flow, and only 32% considered significant endocardial fibroelastosis as a factor. Rhodes score was used by 20% of respondents in decision making regarding the approach to management of this subset of AS. This study shows that there is consensus in the management of mild and severe forms of AS. As expected, disagreement is present in the definition, evaluation, and therapy of moderate aortic valve stenosis. There is a tendency for catheter intervention except in the presence of dysplastic aortic valve or moderate to severe aortic regurgitation. There is also disagreement regarding methods used to determine biventricular versus univentricular repair of a borderline hypoplastic left heart.

Atrial septal defect (ASD) is a common congenital heart defect. Variability in management of this lesion exists among clinicians. A review of the literature reveals that there is lack of standard guidelines for the evaluation and management of patients with different types of ASDs. This survey-based study was conducted to test the uniformity of diagnostic and therapeutic approach to management of children with secundum, sinus venosus, and primum ASDs. Survey questionnaires were prepared to include questions regarding follow-up, diagnosis, and therapeutic intervention of different types and sizes of ASDs. Questions addressed follow-up visitations, type and frequency of investigative studies, pharmacological therapy, and choice of repair method. Surveys were sent out to all pediatric cardiology academic programs in the United States (n=48) and randomly selected international programs from Europe, Asia, and Australia (n=19). A total of 23 programs (34%) responded to the survey (15 from the United States and 8 internationally). A separate questionnaire was prepared for secundum, primum, and sinus venosus ASD. In each questionnaire, lesion types were subdivided into small, moderate, and large defect sizes to address differences of management approaches to each defect type and size. Results indicate that in secundum ASD, most participants use size of the defect and/or evidence of right-sided volume overload as criteria for defining small, moderate, and large defects. Frequency of follow-up does not vary with the type of lesion but is more frequent with larger defects. Most participants see patients with small defects at intervals of 6 months to 1 year and those with large defects at 3- to 6-month intervals. Age of patient and presence of symptoms determined the frequency of follow-up across all defects. Echocardiography was the most frequently used investigative modality in all defect sizes and types during follow-up visits (used by >80% for follow-up), followed by electrocardiography (ECG). There is a striking preference for the use of pharmacological therapy in primum ASD compared with secundum and sinus venosus ASD. The timing of repair was mainly dependent on patient age and symptomatology in different defects, with the presence of associated anomalies contributing to that in primum and sinus venosus ASD. Most participants use percutaneous approach to close secundum ASD (either as a first choice or as one of two choices depending on the presence of certain features). Before repair, participants use MRI or cardiac catheterization to fully evaluate a secundum ASD if it is large. These investigative modalities are not commonly used in primum and sinus venosus ASD. There is agreement on postoperative follow-up in different types of defects, with most participants continuing follow-up indefinitely, especially in larger defects.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract