Objective: To analyze the outcome of repair of aortic valve disease associated with various types of ventricular septal defect. Methods: In a retrospective observational study design, data of seventy-two patients of ventricular septal defect (VSD) associated with aortic valve prolapse (AVP) and aortic regurgitation (AR) who was operated in Punjab Institute of cardiology from May 2016 to April 2020 was collected. Depending on presence of AR, all patients were divided in four groups. Group-I (VSD and AVP but no AR) had fifteen patients. Only VSD was closed in this group. Group-II (VSD and Mild AR) had forty patients, only VSD was closed in this group as well. Group-III (VSD and Moderate AR) had ten patients, VSD closure and aortic valve repair was done. Group-IV (VSD and severe AR) had seven patients. Aortic valve was repaired in five patients and replaced (AVR) in two patients along with VSD closure. Associated anomalies were addressed as well. Results: Group-I: Twelve out of fifteen patients (80%) showed no post-operative AR. While two patients (13.3%) showed Trace AR. Single patient (6.6%) showed mild AR. There results were unchanged after mean follow up of 36 months. Group-II: Eight out of forty patients (20%) had no AR, while eight (20%) had trace AR. Twenty-three (57.5%) patients had mild AR. Single (2.5%) patient had moderate AR. After follow up of 24 months the patient with moderate AR progressed to severe AR. We are planning to do Aortic Valve Replacement (AVR) in this case. Rest of cases showed no progression of disease. Group-III: Two out of ten patients (20%) had no AR, four (40%) had trace AR, while four (40%) had mild AR. Mean follow up was 42 months (2.5 years). Neither trace nor mild AR progressed to severe or moderate AR. Group-IV: Among seven patients, five underwent repair while two had AVR. Out of five patients who underwent aortic valve repair, four patients (57.1%) were declared mild AR, while severe AR was converted to moderate AR in single patient (14.28%). Mean follow up was 18 months. The moderate AR patient has progressed to severe AR for last six months and we are planning to do AVR in this patient. Postoperative echo of patients with AVR showed adequately functioning aortic valve with AVPG mean 10 mmHg and 15 mm Hg respectively, with no residual AR. Conclusions: Aortic regurgitation associated with VSD is a congenital lesion with continuously active aortic valve disease resulting in significant morbidity and mortality. Early diagnosis, effective treatment and meticulous follow up decelerate and in most cases arrest the disease process. doi: https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.37.3.3067 How to cite this:Waqar T, Rizvi MFA, Nasir JA, Khan K. Surgical outcome of repair of aortic valve prolapse and regurgitation associated with ventricular septal defect. Pak J Med Sci. 2021;37(3):---------. doi: https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.37.3.3067 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Objective:To review the surgical outcome of doubly committed subarterial (DCSA) ventricular septal defect repair.Method:Data of 51 patients of doubly committed sub arterial Ventricular septal defect from January 2012 to June 2017 that were referred to Chaudhary Pervaiz Elahi institute of Cardiology Multan was retrospectively reviewed using electronic database. All patients were operated by first author. In our study, we segregated patients into four main groups depending on presence or absence of aortic structural defect and degree of aortic valve regurgitation. Group-A comprised of nineteen (37%) patients who neither had aortic structural nor functional abnormality while Group-B had six (11.7%) patients, having aortic valve cusp prolapse without aortic regurgitation. Group-C and Group-D consists of seventeen (33.3%) and nine (17.6%) patients respectively depending upon degree of aortic regurgitation. Furthermore, six (11.7%) patients among these 51 had associated defects as well.Results:Group-A patients had no aortic valve regurgitation post operatively and at follow up of 22.6 months (1.8 years) as well. In Group-B, aortic valve was not addressed and aortic regurgitation was also not present post operatively or on follow up of 33.6 months (2.8 years). Similarly, in Group-C aortic valve was not addressed, these patients also did not show progression of disease on regular follow up of 18 months (1.5 year). While, in Group-D, eight patients underwent aortic valve repair and one patient had aortic valve replacement. Aortic regurgitation improved significantly in all patients of this group and remained unchanged on follow up of 22.7 months (1.8 years).Conclusion:Early closure of doubly committed subarterial ventricular septal defect with appropriate management of aortic valve disease can halt the process of disease progression.

Objective: To compare the hemodynamics changes, intraoperative awareness and postoperative delirium after combined administration of dexmedetomidine plus propofol versus propofol alone in cardiac surgical patients. Study Design: Randomized Clinical Trial. Setting: Cardiac Center, Bahawal Victoria Hospital, Bahawalpur. Period: 1st December 2018 to January 2020. Material & Methods: Sixty-two (62) patients who underwent different cardiac surgical procedures were included in the study. Patients were randomly divided in group 1 {Dexmedetomidine (DEX) +Propofol} and group 2 {propofol alone}. Induction in group 1 was done by loading dose of DEX (0.7 microgram/kg) while induction in group 2 was done by Lignocaine 1.5 mg/kg. Heart rate (HR), systolic arterial pressure (SAP), diastolic arterial pressure (DAP) and mean arterial pressure (MAP) were recorded at different time intervals. Intraoperative awareness and post-operative delirium was also assessed. Results: All hemodynamic parameters (HR, SAP, DAP, MAP) were statistically significant lower in group 1 in comparison to group 2 at different intervals indicating a more stable hemodynamic profile in group 1. End tidal CO2, pH, and peak airway pressures were not statistically significant between both groups. Intra-operative awareness was diagnosed in 1 (3.2%) patients in group 1 and in 5 (16.1%) patients in group 2 (p-value 0.08). Delirium was diagnosed in 3 (9.6%) patients in group 1 and in only 1 (3.2%) patients in group 2 (p-value 0.30). Conclusion: Combined administration of DEX and propofol produces more stable hemodynamics, less intraoperative awareness but more incidence of delirium as compared to propofol alone in cardiac surgical patients.

Objective: To ascertain the safety and efficacy of concomitant administration of dexmedetomidine and propofol in maintaining myocardial protection and renal function integrity in comparison to propofol alone in adult cardiac surgical patients. Methodology: A randomized clinical trial was conducted at cardiac center Bahawalpur from June 2018 to January 2020. Study included 64 patients who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Two groups, DP (DEXMEDETOMIDINE (DEX) +Propofol) and P (Propofol alone) were made by allocating 32 patients in each group. Hemodynamic parameters (Heart rate, Diastolic blood pressure (DBP), systolic blood pressure (SBP) and mean arterial pressure (MAP) at different time intervals throughout the surgery were measured, pre and post-operative CKMB, any arrhythmias, events of tachycardia and bradycardia were recorded and renal parameters (urine output immediate post pump and 4 hours post pump, creatinine clearance of day 1 and day 2) were measured. Results: DP group showed stable hemodynamics with values of hemodynamic parameters were lesser and statistically significant than patients in group P (Heart rate (p<.05), DBP (P<.05), SBP (P<.05) and MAP (p<.05). Both groups showed insignificant difference in terms of incidence of arrhythmias (p=0.325), Post-operative CKMB (P=0.512), events of tachycardia (p=0.6) and bradycardia (p=0.5).Immediate post pump urine was statistically significant (p<.05), however, 4-hour post pump urine (p = 0.45), creatinine clearance of day 1 (p = 0.8) and day 2 (p =.092) were comparable. Conclusion: Concomitant administration of dexmedetomidine and propofol provide adequate cardioprotection by maintaining stable hemodynamics in comparison to propofol alone, however they did not prove to be effective renoprotective agents.