Responses

Download PDFPDF
Original research article
A propensity score-adjusted analysis of clinical outcomes after pulmonary valve replacement in tetralogy of Fallot
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Considerations in Pursuing the Optimal Timing for Pulmonary Valve Replacement in Repaired Tetralogy of Fallot
    • Kai Ma, Paediatric Cardiac Surgeon Fuwai Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, PR China
    • Other Contributors:
      • Guanxi Wang, Paediatric Cardiac Surgeon
      • Shoujun Li, Paediatric Cardiac Surgeon

    We have read the interesting article from Bokma and colleagues [1] documenting the outcomes of pulmonary valve replacement (PVR) in patients with repaired tetralogy of Fallot (rTOF). In this large multi-centre rTOF cohort, PVR was not associated with a reduced rate of death at mid-term follow-up. Additionally, authors highlighted that there were more events after PVR compared with no PVR in subjects not meeting consensus criteria.
    Currently, although the overall hemodynamic benefits of PVR are evident with broad consensus for surgery before clinical deterioration or symptoms develop, uncertainties remain about the optimal timing for PVR.
    Haemodynamic assessment surrounding PVR has focused on assessment of the right ventricle (RV) size and function, with the goal of intervening in patient prior to the development of irreversible RV deterioration failure. However, although the concept of using RV volumes for decision-making for PVR is widely used, its evidence regarding its impact on long-term outcomes remains weak.
    New information about optimal PVR timing has been continuously addressed. A cardiac magnetic resonance based study suggested that a preoperative RVESVi cutoff of ≤82 mL/m2 was equally sensitive and more specific for normalization of RV volumes compared with our preoperative RVEDVi threshold of ≤158 mL/m2, justifying the use of RVESVi for clinical timing for PVR [2]. In 2015, Bokma concluded that preoperative RVESVi < 80 mL/m2 was the best thr...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.