High risk HLHS: hybrid approach yes, but how does it work?
Editorial

High risk HLHS: hybrid approach yes, but how does it work?

Dietmar Schranz

Pediatric Cardiology, Johann-Wolfgang Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany

Correspondence to: Prof. Dr. Dietmar Schranz, MD, PhD. Pediatric Cardiology, Johann-Wolfgang Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany. Email: dietmar.schranz@KGU.de.

Provenance: This is an invited Editorial commissioned by the Section Editor Xicheng Deng (Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Hunan Children’s Hospital, Changsha, China).

Comment on: Nwankwo UT, Morell EM, Trucco SM, et al. Hybrid Strategy for Neonates with Ductal-Dependent Systemic Circulation at High Risk for Norwood. Ann Thorac Surg 2018;106:595-601.


Submitted Jul 19, 2018. Accepted for publication Jul 20, 2018.

doi: 10.21037/tp.2018.07.03


The majority of newborns with duct-dependent systemic blood flow are related to a hypoplastic left heart syndrome (HLHS), accounting for 2–3.5% of congenital heart defects (1). HLHS is anatomically subdivided in defects with stenosis or atresia of the mitral and aortic valve; consecutively left ventricular chamber size varies between fully diminished to almost normal dimensions in case of an associated VSD. Untreated, HLHS patients died in about 90% within the first week of life (1). Restrictive atrial septum is observed in about 22%; 6% of the HLHS newborns have an intact atrial septum and are critically diseased because of severe postnatal hypoxemia (2). Considering a balanced pulmonary to systemic circulation, clinical condition remains stable. Postnatal adaption usually leads to a decrease in pulmonary vascular resistance; consecutive diastolic left-to-right shunt with increased oxygenated blood passing the duct disposed together with missing maternal prostaglandin for postnatal duct obstruction. Newborns with pre- and postnatally undetected duct-dependent systemic blood flow are oftentimes admitted in cardiogenic shock; pulmonary run off and/or duct obstruction are the most reasons. Preoperative hemodynamic instability, moderate-to-severe dysfunction of the dominant ventricle and atrioventricular valve regurgitation, restrictive atrial septum and/or obstructed total anomalous pulmonary venous return classifies HLHS-newborns as high risk (3); further birth weight less of 2.6 kg as well as prematurity (<37 weeks). Considering a Norwood surgery in high-risk HLHS patients, the Aristotle score increases from an already high baseline value of 15 to 19 or even above 20 calculated points; latest is associated with a dramatic decrease of the post-surgical survival rate (3,4). Exact 20 years ago, Hakan Akintuerk performed in Giessen, Germany the first successful comprehensive stage II in a 5-month-old HLHS patient (5). The patient admitted as 2-day-old newborn in a cardiogenic shock; bilateral pulmonary banding (bPAB) solved immediately the cause of pulmonary run-off; his duct-dependent circulation was initially treated by a continuous infusion of PGE1. Two days after bPAB the duct was stented as an elective percutaneous transcatheter approach. Currently, the 20-years old man still lives in a good clinical condition. Based on our initial experiences in high-risk HLHS neonates (5), later on Norwood surgery was replaced also as an elective procedure. Outcome data did not show any difference between high-risk and HLHS neonates with a normal risk score. Hybrid stage I can be performed with insignificant mortality (6,7). Expanded experiences, improvements of techniques, in particular stent material, nearly all HLHS newborns can currently have a chance for treatment. Additionally, hybrid approach was also introduced to transfer newborns with high-risk of non-HLHS from the neonatal period in late infancy to achieve either an option for biventricular repair or to reduce neonatal surgical risk (8,9). Shifting an extensive open-heart surgery beyond the neonatal period improved also the neurological development comparing conventional surgical procedures (10,11). However, aim and technique of hybrid approach consisting of bPAB, ductal stenting and manipulation of the atrial septum and aortic isthmus, if necessary varied worldwide between Pediatric Heart Centers (6,12-15). In Giessen Germany, only bPAB is surgically performed as a component of the hybrid approach; any additional risk as transpulmonary duct stenting is avoided. Duct stenting and if necessary aortic arch manipulation and/or atrial septostomy are performed by a percutaneous transcatheter approach as an elective follow-up procedure (6,7). The “Hybrid” group in Columbus introduced transpulmonary duct stenting during the same open chest surgery, immediately after bPAB completion (12). In Toronto Canada (13), additionally a reverse shunt procedure was institutionalized with aim avoiding a supposed descending aortic arch obstruction compromising a sufficient retrograde blood flow to the cerebral and coronary circulation. Postnatal hybrid procedure is even used for briding to a Norwood stage I beyond the neonatal period by combining bPAB with continuous infusion of prostaglandin E1 (14) or together with a transpulmonary duct stenting (15).

The report of Nwankwo et al. (16) “Hybrid Strategy for Neonates with Ductal-Dependent Systemic Circulation at High Risk for Norwood” underlines the need for an additional surgical option beyond the Norwood procedure treating newborns with duct-dependent systemic blood flow. It seems that a good prepared hybrid-program might be of benefit for many patients in any Pediatric Heart Center, independent from an out-standing Norwood program. The Pittsburgh study presents retrospective results based on a pre-selected institutional risk stratification management. The annual number of about 10 Norwood stage I procedures with a 30-day mortality of 8% or even less than 4% neglecting high risk patients represents a middle-sized Pediatric Heart Center with a high-leveled care of HLHS and variants. Before a hybrid program was established, 16 patients classified as high risk received a Norwood procedure. This advanced neonatal surgery was performed on expense of 31% mortality by neglecting further morbidity data. After an established hybrid-program, the thirty-day mortality of the high-risk neonates could be reduced to less than 4%. However, the interstage mortality and comprehensive stage II results equalized the initial benefits of hybrid stage I. Considering these data, it seems that there is still space for improvement. It remains open, if techniques of the hybrid stage I and/or interstage monitoring have the main impact on the final results. Based on similar experiences as achieved in Pittsburgh, many centers recommend the hybrid approach as an interim procedure to rescue high-risk patient independent if during the follow-up a Norwood stage I surgery or comprehensive stage II approach is performed (15). Currently, the decision to adopt the hybrid approach or the Norwood approach seemed to be based on the preference of congenital heart surgeon’s rarely pediatric cardiologists. Over the last 2 decades, many institutional reports and reviews were published to figure out the “pros and cons” of hybrid approach in context of the “conventional” Norwood stage I surgery (17,18). Hybrid stage I together with its later performed comprehensive stage II was often compared to Norwood stage I with its necessitating follow-up bi-directional Glenn-shunt. Over all, the hybrid-approach was and is mostly in the defensive, apostrophized between bad and questionable or as the “fifty shades of grey” in comparison to Norwood procedure (19). Conclusions oftentimes ended with the summary of missing scientific studies, which could support the possible benefits of the hybrid approach (20). In this context, following questions arise: (I) why is an alternative to a standard therapy be battled, if nobody is obligated to change the routine? (II) Why do always find difficult lateral options for treating our patients? (III) How can be a surgical approach an option for “high”-risk, but not for elective patients? May be the last question should be answered first. Based on 20-year experience treating almost 250 patients by a hybrid approach in setting of HLHS or newborns with duct dependent systemic blood flow with borderline left heart structures, my subjective answer is, that there is not a shame for any Pediatric Heart Center having an additional hybrid—despite a well-going Norwood-program. However, that implies like in Pittsburgh, surgeons and cardiologists have to be prepared for performing and establishing a hybrid approach. The beginner team has not to start, as we 20-year ago, just confronted to a HLHS newborn in cardiogenic shock. The easy looking three hybrid parts—bPAB, duct stenting and atrial septum/isthmus manipulation—need training and appropriate material and surgical and interventional skills resulting in acceptable results. Surgically performed bPAB can be a disaster or a benefit for the necessitating follow-up operations ending in a hemodynamically well functional Fontan circulation. The PAB can be associated with hypoplastic branches or if appropriate performed with good developed pulmonary arteries based on a favored, post-(stenotic) band pulmonary artery dilatation. For this the PAB width should be small with a diameter of 1–2 mm, fixed at the adventitia, and depending of the body weight with a diameter of 3.5 or 3 mm (6). Considering that duct-stenting is not a must (14), stent placement should be performed as transpulmonary or as a separate, elective percutaneous approach. We prefer duct stenting as a separate approach with self-expandable stent-material, which has in Europe a CE-mark for newborns with duct dependent-systemic blood flow (6). One of the main reasons for percutaneous duct stenting is the direct impact on the junction of the duct to the descending aortic arch. The isthmus region needs sometimes be manipulated both, before or after stent is positioned within the duct. Important is in any case having a favorable isthmus region. If not, the aortic isthmus might be balloon dilated before duct is stented or an aortic coarctation becomes evident following placement of a duct stent, then an additional stent is necessary treating the coarctation. Again, also the Pittsburgh experience shows, that the interstage remains a vulnerable period until the comprehensive stage II is completed. The strategy to utilize the hybrid approach for briding to Norwood-stage I and not to a comprehensive stage II might be born on similar problems during the hybrid-interstage (15).

In conclusion, why hybrid? (I) Each of the three parts of the hybrid approach can be utilized as one of the most effective resuscitative tools for newborns with duct-dependent systemic blood flow; independent of the cause of the compromised cardiovascular function; (II) hybrid approach generates chances for high-risk HLHS and duct-dependent non-HLHS newborns; (III) hybrid approach is able to replace neonatal Norwood stage I surgery; (IV) hybrid approach is and must remain the minimal invasive alternative of the Norwood surgery. Considering the Editorial of Charles Fraser to the surgical palliation for HLHS “for now, just keep doing what you do best” (21), it can be expanded to the hybrid approach “looks simple, requires extensive training” (22).


Acknowledgements

None.


Footnote

Conflicts of Interest: The author has no conflicts of interest to declare.


References

  1. Samánek M, Slavík Z, Zborilová B, et al. Prevalence, treatment, and outcome of heart disease in live-born children: a prospective analysis of 91,823 live-born children. Pediatr Cardiol 1989;10:205-11. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  2. Rychik J, Szwast A, Natarajan S, et al. Prenatal and early surgical outcome for the fetus with hypoplastic left heart syndrome: a 5-year single institutional experience. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2010;36:465-70. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  3. Lacour-Gayet F, Clarke D, Jacobs J, et al. The Aristotle score: a complexity-adjusted method to evaluate surgical results. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2004;25:911-24. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  4. Lloyd DF, Cutler L, Tibby SM, et al. Analysis of preoperative condition and interstage mortality in Norwood and hybrid procedures for hypoplastic left heart syndrome using the Aristotle scoring system. Heart 2014;100:775-80. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  5. Akintuerk H, Michel-Behnke I, Valeske K, et al. Stenting of the arterial duct and banding of the pulmonary arteries: Basis for combined Norwood stage I and II repair in hypoplastic left heart. Circulation 2002;105:1099-103. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  6. Schranz D, Bauer A, Reich B, et al. Fifteen-year single center experience with the "Giessen Hybrid" approach for hypoplastic left heart and variants: current strategies and outcomes. Pediatr Cardiol 2015;36:365-73. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  7. Yerebakan C, Valeske K, Elmontaser H, et al. Hybrid Therapy for Hypoplastic Left Heart Syndrome – Myth, Alternative or Standard? J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2016;151:1112-21. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  8. Michel-Behnke I, Akintuerk H, Marquardt I, et al. Stenting of the ductus arteriosus and banding of the pulmonary arteries: basis for various surgical strategies in newborns with multiple left heart obstructive lesions. Heart 2003;89:645-50. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  9. Yerebakan C, Murray J, Valeske K, et al. Long-term results of biventricular repair after initial Giessen hybrid approach for hypoplastic left heart variants. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2015;149:1112-20. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  10. Reich B, Heye K, Tuura R, et al. Neurodevelopmental Outcome and Health-related Quality of Life in Children With Single-ventricle Heart Disease Before Fontan Procedure. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2017. [Epub ahead of print]. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  11. Heye KN, Knirsch W, Latal B, et al. Reduction of brain volumes after neonatal cardiopulmonary bypass surgery in single-ventricle congenital heart disease before Fontan completion. Pediatr Res 2018;83:63-70. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  12. Galantowicz M, Yates AR. Improved outcomes with the comprehensive stage2 procedure after an initial hybrid stage 1. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2016;151:424-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  13. Baba K, Honjo O, Chaturvedi R, et al. “Reverse Blalock- Taussig shunt”: application in single ventricle hybrid palliation. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2013;146:352-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  14. Ota N, Murata M, Tosaka Y, et al. Is routine rapid-staged bilateral pulmonary artery banding before stage 1 Norwood a viable strategy? J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014;148:1519-25. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  15. Murphy MO, Bellsham-Revell H, Morgan GJ, et al. Hybrid Procedure for Neonates With Hypoplastic Left Heart Syndrome at High-Risk for Norwood: Midterm Outcomes. Ann Thorac Surg 2015;100:2286-90. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  16. Nwankwo UT, Morell EM, Trucco SM, et al. Hybrid Strategy for Neonates with Ductal-Dependent Systemic Circulation at High Risk for Norwood. Ann Thorac Surg 2018;106:595-601. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  17. Karamlou T, Overman D, Hill KD, et al. Stage 1 hybrid palliation for hypoplastic left heart syndrome–assessment of contempo- rary patterns of use: an analysis of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Congenital Heart Surgery Database. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2015;149:195-202. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  18. Malik S, Bird TM, Jaquiss RD, et al. Comparison of in- hospital and longer-term outcomes of hybrid and Norwood stage 1 palliation of hypoplastic left heart syndrome. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2015;150:474-80.e2. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  19. Karamlou T, Peyvandi S. Hybrid versus Norwood: ‘‘fifty shades of grey J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2015;150:456-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  20. Yabrodi M, Mastropietro CW. Hypoplastic left heart syndrome: from comfort care to long-term survival. Pediatr Res 2017;81:142-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  21. Fraser CD Jr. Surgical Palliation for Hypoplastic Left Heart Syndrome: For Now, Just Keep Doing What You Do Best. Circulation 2018;137:2254-5. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  22. Ohye RG, Schranz D, D'Udekem Y. Current Therapy for Hypoplastic Left Heart Syndrome and Related Single Ventricle Lesions. Circulation 2016;134:1265-79. [Crossref] [PubMed]
Cite this article as: Schranz D. High risk HLHS: hybrid approach yes, but how does it work? Transl Pediatr 2018;7(3):222-225. doi: 10.21037/tp.2018.07.03