Hagler, Donald J.

Background— After repair of aortic coarctation, patients may develop restenosis, aneurysms, and pseudoaneurysms at the site of prior repair. We assessed the outcomes of late reintervention on the descending aorta after aortic coarctation repair. Methods and Results— From March 1954 to July 2008, 130 patients had operations or endovascular procedures on the descending aorta after previous coarctation repair. We excluded patients who had complex left-sided cardiac lesions or interrupted aortic arch. Mean age at reintervention was 32±24 years and 28% were female. The interval between coarctation repair and reintervention was 17±13 years. Seventy-four percent of patients had hypertension. Reasons for reintervention were restenosis (n=122 [94%]), aneurysm (n=4 [3%]), and pseudoaneurysm (n=4 [3%]). Ninety-five patients (73%) underwent operative procedures including an extra-anatomic conduit (n=41), patch repair (n=32), interposition graft (n=14), end–end anastomosis (n=6), and subclavian flap (n=2). Thirty-five patients underwent endovascular treatment (balloon dilatation, n=22 or stenting, n=13). There was no early mortality. In the surgical group, 5 patients required early reoperation for bleeding and 5 patients had early vocal cord paralysis. One patient in the endovascular group had aortic rupture at the time of intervention requiring urgent operation. Survival was 97% at 10 years. At 5 years, freedom from a second repeat procedure on the descending aorta was 96% in the surgical group and 72% in the endovascular group ( P <0.001). Five years after reintervention, fewer patients required treatment for hypertension (57% versus 74% , P <0.001) and a median of 1 antihypertensive medication was prescribed compared with a median of 2 medications preintervention. Conclusions— Operative and endovascular management of recoarctation can be performed safely with good late outcomes.

Patients treated by pediatric interventional cardiologists and cardiac surgeons often have unmet medical device needs that pose a challenge to the current regulatory evaluation and approval process in the United States. In this report we review current US Food and Drug Administration regulatory processes, review some unique aspects of pediatric cardiology and cardiac surgery that pose challenges to these processes, and discuss possible alternate pathways to cardiac device evaluation and approval for children. Children deserve to benefit from new and refined cardiac devices and technology designed explicitly for their conditions.

We report an 8-year-old girl who presented with clinical features of an acute myocardial infarction. The angiographic appearance of the coronary arteries was normal. A thrombophilic state caused by a homozygote genotype for the prothrombin G20210A mutation was detected, and a patent foramen ovale (PFO) with right-to-left shunting after Valsalva maneuver was demonstrated by transesophageal contrast echocardiography. No other embolic source was identified. We suggest that paradoxical embolization through a PFO resulted in a myocardial infarction in this young patient with hereditary thrombophilia. We closed the patient’s PFO with a 25-mm PFO occluder. She was anticoagulated with warfarin for 6 months. After 6 months, a contrast echocardiogram showed no evidence of residual atrial shunt. There has been no evident recurrent paradoxical embolization.