Morbimortality of Contegra Duct Replacements Versus Homografts in Pulmonary Position

November 20, 2017 updated by: Pierre Wauthy

Morbimortality of Contegra Duct Replacements Versus Homografts in Pulmonary Position: a Comparative Study

Congenital heart diseases are nowadays frequently treated in newborns. These congenital heart defects can directly affect the right ventricular ejection tract (RVOT), or sometimes indirectly, when the left ventricular ejection tract (LVOT) is replaced by the ROVT in a Ross operation. Originally introduced by Ross and Somerville in 1966, the reconstruction of ROVT by valved homografts is since then widely used.Pulmonary and aortic homografts then constituted the gold standard in conduit replacement between the right ventricle and the pulmonary artery (VD-AP).

The increasing demand for homografts currently induces a shortage and unmet demands. This lack of availability, and the durability of homografts in young patients, has encouraged the search for alternative conducts.For example, in 1999, Medtronic® put a bovine jugular vein xenograft (VJB) on the market, the Contegra® conduct, as alternative for the homograft for RVOT reconstruction. This duct naturally has a central valve with three valvules, and there is on both sides of the valve a generous duct length allowing unique adaptation options. This conduit, however, is not perfect.

Whether using Contegra® ducts or homografts, replacement is inevitable. The aim of this study is to compare operative morbidity and mortality when replacing Contegra® or homograft.

Study Overview

Status

Completed

Detailed Description

Congenital heart diseases are nowadays frequently treated in newborns. These congenital heart defects can directly affect the right ventricular ejection tract (RVOT), or sometimes indirectly, when the left ventricular ejection tract (LVOT) is replaced by the ROVT in a Ross operation. Originally introduced by Ross and Somerville in 1966, the reconstruction of ROVT by valved homografts is since then widely used. The technique became particularly popular from the mid-1980s, through the routine use of cryopreservation. Pulmonary and aortic homografts then constituted the gold standard in conduit replacement between the right ventricle and the pulmonary artery (VD-AP). Early failure of homografts is mainly due to early calcifications. Lung homografts are, however, less prone to obstructions and calcifications than aortic homografts but are not readily available, particularly in small sizes (10-18mm).

The increasing demand for homografts currently induces a shortage and unmet demands. This lack of availability, and the durability of homografts in young patients, has encouraged the search for alternative conducts. For example, in 1999, Medtronic® put a bovine jugular vein xenograft (VJB) on the market, the Contegra® conduct, as alternative for the homograft for RVOT reconstruction. This duct naturally has a central valve with three valvules, and there is on both sides of the valve a generous duct length allowing unique adaptation options. It is stored in a glutaraldehyde solution in concentrations sufficient enough to make it non-antigenic, yet low enough to maintain the flexibility of the tissue.This conduit has many advantages: 1) Immediate availability 2) Available size range from 12 to 22mm internal diameter 3) Possibility of adaptation to morphology and easily suturable 4) Good hemodynamics 5) No need for proximal or distal extension 6) lower cost than homograft and 7) non-antigenicity.

This conduit, however, is not perfect. On the one hand, it has no growth potential and therefore risks becoming too small and no longer suitable as the child develops. This problem is particularly encountered in small patients, in whom ducts less than 16mm in diameter have been implanted, and is not specific to the duct in VJB. On the other hand, there is a source of failure specific to the Contegra® prosthesis. These are the stenoses at the level of the distal anastomosis between the duct and the pulmonary artery. Several mechanisms explain this distal stenosis: 1) hypoplasia or distal stenosis of the branches of the pulmonary artery, 2) difference in size between the duct and the pulmonary artery being too important, 3) the surgical technique , 4) immunological and inflammatory reactions, 5) neointimal proliferation, 6) thrombi formation. The most likely cause is multifactorial, with a combination of factors cited above.

Prior et al proposed an operative protocol for reducing the distal stenosis rate. With this protocol distal stenosis has become a rare complication but there are still situations in which the VJB conduit needs to be replaced.

Therefore, whether using Contegra® ducts or homografts, replacement is inevitable. The aim of this study is to compare operative morbidity and mortality when replacing Contegra® or homograft.

Study Type

Observational

Enrollment (Actual)

84

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

      • Brussels, Belgium, 1020
        • CHU Brugmann

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

  • Child
  • Adult
  • Older Adult

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Sampling Method

Non-Probability Sample

Study Population

All patients having had the replacement of a Contegra conduct, or the replacement of an homograft in pulmonary position, between January 1999 and October 2016, within the Queen Fabiola Children Hospital of Brussels, Belgium.

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • All patients having had the replacement of a Contegra conduct, or the replacement of an homograft in pulmonary position, between January 1999 and October 2016, within the Queen Fabiola Children Hospital of Brussels, Belgium.

Exclusion Criteria:

  • None

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Observational Models: Case-Control
  • Time Perspectives: Retrospective

Cohorts and Interventions

Group / Cohort
Intervention / Treatment
Homograft in pulmonary position replacement
All patients having had the replacement of an homograft in pulmonary position between January 1999 and October 2016, within the Queen Fabiola Children Hospital of Brussels, Belgium.
Data collection within medical files
Contegra conduct replacement
All patients having had the replacement of a Contegra conduct between January 1999 and October 2016, within the Queen Fabiola Children Hospital of Brussels, Belgium.
Data collection within medical files

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Age
Time Frame: 18 years
Age of the child when replacement surgery is performed
18 years
Length of time between placement surgery and replacement surgery
Time Frame: 18 years
Length of time between the placement of the homograft/Contegra and its replacement
18 years
Weight
Time Frame: 18 years
Weight of the child before replacement surgery
18 years
Sex
Time Frame: 18 years
Sex of the child
18 years
Homograft/contegra position (anatomic/extra anatomic)
Time Frame: 18 years
Anatomic or extra anatomic position
18 years
Co-intervention (yes/no)
Time Frame: 18 years
Presence of another surgical intervention during the homograft/contegra replacement surgery
18 years
Total duration of intervention
Time Frame: 18 years
Total duration of the replacement surgery
18 years
Total duration of extra corporeal circulation
Time Frame: 18 years
Total duration of extra corporeal circulation during the replacement surgery
18 years
Aortic clampage duration
Time Frame: 18 years
Total duration of aortic clampage duration during the replacement surgery
18 years
Duration of circulatory arrest
Time Frame: 18 years
Total duration of circulatory arrest during the replacement surgery
18 years
Presence of perioperatory complications (yes/no)
Time Frame: 18 years
Presence of perioperatory complications (yes/no) during the replacement surgery
18 years
PRISM Score
Time Frame: 18 years
Pediatric Risk of Mortality score, ad defined by the pediatric ICU in post-replacement surgery care
18 years
Inotropic duration
Time Frame: 18 years
Inotropic duration in post-replacement surgery care
18 years
Extubation day
Time Frame: 18 years
Number of days between the surgery and the extubation in post-replacement surgery care
18 years
Length of stay in ICU
Time Frame: 18 years
Number of days in ICU after replacement surgery
18 years
Length of hospitalisation after replacement surgery
Time Frame: 18 years
Length of hospitalisation after replacement surgery
18 years
Cause of death
Time Frame: 18 years
Cause of death after replacement surgery
18 years

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

Investigators

  • Principal Investigator: Nicolas Poinot, CHU Brugmann

Publications and helpful links

The person responsible for entering information about the study voluntarily provides these publications. These may be about anything related to the study.

General Publications

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

February 14, 2017

Primary Completion (Actual)

June 1, 2017

Study Completion (Actual)

June 1, 2017

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

February 2, 2017

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

February 7, 2017

First Posted (Estimate)

February 9, 2017

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

November 22, 2017

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

November 20, 2017

Last Verified

November 1, 2017

More Information

Terms related to this study

Keywords

Other Study ID Numbers

  • CHUB-Conegra vs homografts

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

No

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

product manufactured in and exported from the U.S.

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Congenital Heart Disease

Clinical Trials on Data collection within medical files

Subscribe