The article abstract, "an infant who underwent ross technique/mitral valve replacement with manouguian technique for aortic/mitral valve stenosis", was reviewed.The article presents a case study of a 7-month-old, 4.9kg, male patient with prior aortic archplasty procedure presented with aortic valve stenosis, mitral valve stenosis, and pulmonary hypertension.On an unknown date, a 17mm sjm regent mechanical heart valve was chosen for procedure as part of a double valve replacement procedure.A decision was made to perform ross technique for the aortic valve and manouguian technique for the mitral valve.A 17mm sjm regent mechanical heart valve was sutured to an 18mm e-ptfe graft and then implanted in the patient's mitral annulus.It was reported the coronary arteries were then attached to the pulmonary autograft that was implanted in the aortic position.After the ascending aorta was reconstructed and cardiac pulsation resumed, complete atrioventricular (av) block was observed.A decision was made to implant a temporary pacing catheter and weaned the patient from the artificial heart-lung machine.It was then reported post-procedure, complete av block developed into a high degree av block and supraventricular tachycardia was observed.A decision was made to implant a permanent pacemaker in the patient.The patient status was reported as stable.[the primary author was jin igarashi, kanagawa children's medical center, 2 chome-138-4 mutsukawa, minami ward, yokohama, kanagawa 232-0066, japan].
|
As reported in a research article, a patient with prior aortic archplasty procedure presented with aortic valve stenosis, mitral valve stenosis, and pulmonary hypertension.A 17mm sjm regent mechanical heart valve was chosen for procedure as part of a double valve replacement procedure.A decision was made to perform ross technique for the aortic valve and manouguian technique for the mitral valve.Then reported post-procedure, complete av block developed into a high degree av block and supraventricular tachycardia was observed.A decision was made to implant a permanent pacemaker in the patient.A more comprehensive assessment could not be performed as the event was non-contemporaneously reported through a literature review and no device was received for analysis.Based on the information received, the cause of the reported incident could not be conclusively determined.There is no indication of a product quality issue with regards to manufacture, design, or labeling.
|