Modified-Single Patch vs Double Patch Repair of Complete Atrioventricular Septal Defects

"Repair of common atrioventricular junction in isolation and when associated with other congenital heart defects"

Management of atrioventricular septal defects has grown leaps and bounds since the first correction of this malformation. Main reasons considered for the improvement are good understanding of lesion anatomy, precise preoperative diagnosis including imaging, progress in surgical technique, myocardial protection, and post-operative care. In this article we review the anatomy, pathophysiology, clinical features, associations, diagnosis, surgical therapy, complications, and results of atrioventricular septal defects.

Modified Single Repair Technique for Complete Atrioventricular Septal Defect: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis

There were controversies about the priority of modified single patch (MSP) technique compared with two-patch (TP) technique for patients with complete atrioventricular septal defect (CAVSD). From 2002 to 2013, patients who diagnosed as balanced CAVSD in our institution were retrospectively included. Patients with unbalanced ventricles or associated anomalies were excluded. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality and the secondary endpoint consist of left atrioventricular dysfunction or left atrioventricular outflow tract obstruction (LVOTO). A total of 74 patients underwent MSP repair and 102 patients underwent TP repair. After 1:1 propensity matching, there were 46 Rastelli type A CAVSD patients in each group. Patients in MSP group had shorter cardiopulmonary bypass time [median (interquartile range) 73.5 (65.5-95.0) versus 105.0 (88.8-130.0) min, P < 0.001] and aortic cross-clamp time [105.5 (90.0-128.0) versus 143.0 (122.0-184.0) min, P < 0.001]. In total, the primary endpoint occurred in 12 patients, including 2/46 (4.3%) in MSP group and 10/46 (21.7%) in TP group. That 1-year, 3-year, 5-year survival rate can be calculated as 95.6%, 95.6%, 95.6% in MSP group and 92.6%, 80.4%, 78.2% in TP group, P = 0.015. No significant statistical difference found for the secondary endpoints that 7/46 (15.2%) patients occurred moderate or severe LAVVR in MSP group versus 11/46 (23.9%) patients in TP group, P = 0.293. No LVOTO occurred in both groups. Besides the simplicity of technique, MSP technique may be safer.