Congenital Heart Defects
Conditions
Keywords
quality of life, congenital heart disease, open heart surgery, percutaneous pulmonary valve implantation, costs
Brief summary
This study compares clinical, self- reported and cost outcomes in children and adolescents treated with pulmonary valve implantation, percutaneous versus open surgical technique. Since cardiac surgery in children and adolescents affect the whole family, the experience of the patients and their closest relatives are recorded and analysed separately. Cost may be an important factor in the choice of technology (1). Hence, the present study also aims to compare savings in costs, percutaneous versus open technique, related to the individual, their family and society. 1.2 Research questions 1. Percutaneous pulmonary valve implantation or open heart surgery; what are the patients' and their closest relatives narrative experiences 2. Is there a difference in patient and their closest relatives reported outcomes, measured as health related quality of life, in patients with congenital pulmonary disease before the event, 1, 3, 6 and 12 months after percutaneous intervention versus open heart surgery approach? 3. What is the relationship between patient reported outcomes and clinical outcomes before, 1, 3, 6 and 12 months after the treatment? 4. Are there savings in costs related to the individual and their family and society between the two techniques?
Interventions
PROCEDUREPercutaneous pulmonary valve implantation or open heart surgery
Outcomes before percutaneous pulmonary valve implantation or open heart surgery before, 1, 3, 6 and 12 months after the treatment
Sponsors
Oslo University Hospital
Study design
Allocation
NON_RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
HEALTH_SERVICES_RESEARCH
Masking
NONE
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
7 Years to 50 Years
Healthy volunteers
No
Inclusion criteria
* secure indication of pulmonary valve dysfunction (stenosis and, or regurgitation) * an indication of surgical correction * body weight according to the recommendation from the producer of the device * moderate to serious dilatation of right ventricle * considerable leak in the tricuspidal valve * information from former surgery; conduit size, gradient of the stenosis measured by EKKO/MR/ catheterization, X-ray. * be able to speak and communicate well in Norwegian.
Exclusion criteria
* aggressive endocarditis * not circumferential deposit of calcium * \< 20 kg * not able to understand, speak or communicate well in Norwegian
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Quality of life | up to 12 month's after treatment | Percutaneous pulmonary valve implantation or open heart surgery; what are the patients and their closest relatives narrative experiences. Measured before the event, 1, 3, 6, and 12 month's after treatment. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Clinical outcomes | up to 12 months after treatment | What is the relationship between patient reported outcomes and clinical outcomes before, 1, 3, 6 and 12 months after the treatment Is there a difference in the effect of percutaneous versus open surgical technique on operative time, complication rate and reoperations in the peri- and postoperative period? |
| Are there savings in costs related to the individual and their family and society between the two techniques? | up to 12 months after surgery | In order to describe and compare the differences in costs with patients outcomes and quality-adjusted life years, this study aim to calculate both in-hospital care and out-patient clinical costs between percutaneous pulmonary valve implantation and conventional open heart surgery. Measured Before the event, 1, 3, 6 and 12 months after surgery. |
Countries
Norway
Contacts
Primary ContactBrith Andresen, Can san
Backup ContactErik Fosse, Professor/Head of Department
Outcome results
None listed