Background and Objectives: Pulmonary valve replacement (PVR) is the most common operation in adults with congenital heart disease (CHD). There is controversy regarding the best bioprosthesis. We compare the performance of stented bioprosthetic valves (the Mosaic [Medtronic™] porcine pericardial against Carpentier Perimount Magna Ease [Edwards™] bovine) in pulmonary position in patients with CHD. Methods: Between January 1999 and December 2019, all the PVRs were identified from hospital databases in 2 congenital heart centres in Spain. Valve performance was evaluated using clinical and echocardiographic criteria. Propensity score matching was used to balance the 2 treatment groups. Results: Three hundred nineteen patients were retrospectively identified. After statistical adjustment, 79 propensity-matched pairs were available for comparison Freedom from reintervention for the porcine cohort was 98.3%, 96.1%, and 91.9% at 3, 5, and 10 years and 100%, 98%, and 90.8% for the bovine cohort (p=0.88). Freedom from structural valve degeneration (SVD) for the porcine cohort was 96.9%, 92.8% and 88.7% at 3, 5, and 10 years and 100%, 98%, and 79.1% for the bovine cohort (p=0.38). Bovine prosthesis was associated with a reintervention hazard ratio (HR), 1.12; 95% confidence intervals (CIs), 0.24–5.26; p=0.89 and SVD HR, 1.69 (0.52–5.58); p=0.38. In the first 5 years, there was no difference in outcomes. After 5 years, the recipients of the bovine bioprosthesis were at higher risk for SVD (reintervention HR, 2.08 [0.27–16.0]; p=0.49; SVD HR, 6.99 [1.23–39.8]; p=0.03). Conclusions Both bioprosthesis have similar outcomes up to 5 years, afterwards, porcine bioprosthesis seem to have less SVD.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Adults with congenital heart disease (CHD) are an increasing group of patients thanks to the survival of over 85% of children with CHD. 20% of these patients shall warrant a surgical procedure during their life span. However, currently there is no one risk score that assess correctly the mortality of these procedures. Thus, we analyse the risk scores used at our institution. METHODS: From May 1991 till June 2017, 608 procedures in adults with CHD were performed. The 3 risk scores (risk adjustment for congenital heart surgery [RACHS-1], Aristotle, and Euroscore I) of each procedure were analysed. We used area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (c-index) to measure model discrimination, and Hosmer-Lemeshow (H-L) statistic along with calibration plots to measure calibration. RESULTS: There was no statistical difference between the area under the curve for the 3 scores (χ²=0.58 with 2 df, p=0.750). There was no evidence of lack of fit for RACHS-1 (H-L, χ²=2.61; p=0.271) and Aristotle score (H-L, χ²=5.69; p=0.459). However, there was evidence in lack of calibration in the Euroscore I scoring system (H-L, χ²=33.69; p<0.001). The calibration slope for RACHS-1 was 0.912, for Aristotle (stratified in risk groups) was −0.14 and for Euroscore 1 (stratified in risk groups) was 0.46. CONCLUSIONS: RACHS-1 seems to be best risk scoring system for calculating mortality applied to surgery in adults with CHD.
Adult ; Calibration ; Child ; Discrimination (Psychology) ; Heart Defects, Congenital ; Humans ; Mortality ; ROC Curve ; Thoracic Surgery

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Adults with congenital heart disease (CHD) are an increasing group of patients thanks to the survival of over 85% of children with CHD. 20% of these patients shall warrant a surgical procedure during their life span. However, currently there is no one risk score that assess correctly the mortality of these procedures. Thus, we analyse the risk scores used at our institution. METHODS: From May 1991 till June 2017, 608 procedures in adults with CHD were performed. The 3 risk scores (risk adjustment for congenital heart surgery [RACHS-1], Aristotle, and Euroscore I) of each procedure were analysed. We used area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (c-index) to measure model discrimination, and Hosmer-Lemeshow (H-L) statistic along with calibration plots to measure calibration. RESULTS: There was no statistical difference between the area under the curve for the 3 scores (χ²=0.58 with 2 df, p=0.750). There was no evidence of lack of fit for RACHS-1 (H-L, χ²=2.61; p=0.271) and Aristotle score (H-L, χ²=5.69; p=0.459). However, there was evidence in lack of calibration in the Euroscore I scoring system (H-L, χ²=33.69; p<0.001). The calibration slope for RACHS-1 was 0.912, for Aristotle (stratified in risk groups) was −0.14 and for Euroscore 1 (stratified in risk groups) was 0.46. CONCLUSIONS RACHS-1 seems to be best risk scoring system for calculating mortality applied to surgery in adults with CHD.