CLINICAL STUDY
Comparison between transcatheter and surgical closure of secundum atrial septal defect in children and adults
Results of a multicenter nonrandomized trial
Zhong-Dong Du, MD*,
Ziyad M. Hijazi, MD, MPHFACC*,*,
Charles S. Kleinman, MD, FACC ,
Norman H. Silverman, MD, FACC ,
Kinley Larntz, PhD¶ Amplatzer Investigators
* Section of Pediatric Cardiology, Department of Pediatrics, University of Chicago Children’s Hospital and Pritzker School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA
Nemours Cardiac Center, Orlando, Florida, USA
Pediatric Cardiology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA
¶ University of Minnesota, School of Medicine, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
* Reprint requests and correspondence: Dr. Ziyad M. Hijazi, Section of Pediatric Cardiology, University of Chicago Children’s Hospital, 5841 S. Maryland Avenue, MC 4051, Chicago, Illinois 60637, USA.
zhijazi{at}peds.bsd.uchicago.edu
 |
Abstract
|
|---|
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare the safety, efficacy and clinical utility of the Amplatzer septal occluder (ASO) for closure of secundum atrial septal defect (ASD) with surgical closure.
BACKGROUND: The clinical utility of a device such as the ASO can only be judged against the results of contemporaneous surgery.
METHODS: A multicenter, nonrandomized concurrent study was performed in 29 pediatric cardiology centers from March 1998 to March 2000. The patients were assigned to either the device or surgical closure group according to the patients’ option. Baseline physical exams and echocardiography were performed preprocedure and at follow-up (6 and 12 months for device group, 12 months for surgical group).
RESULTS: A total of 442 patients were in the group undergoing device closure, whereas 154 patients were in the surgical group. The median age was 9.8 years for the device group and 4.1 years for the surgical group (p < 0.001). In the device group, 395 (89.4%) patients had a single ASD; in the surgical group, 124 (80.5%) (p = 0.008) had a single ASD. The size of the primary ASD was 13.3 ± 5.4 mm for the device group and 14.2 ± 6.3 mm for the surgery group (p = 0.099). The procedural attempt success rate was 95.7% for the device group and 100% for the surgical group (p = 0.006). The early, primary and secondary efficacy success rates were 94.8%, 98.5% and 91.6%, respectively, for the device group, and 96.1%, 100% and 89.0% for the surgical group (all p > 0.05). The complication rate was 7.2% for the device group and 24.0% for the surgical group (p < 0.001). The mean length of hospital stay was 1.0 ± 0.3 day for the device group and 3.4 ± 1.2 days for the surgical group (p < 0.001). Mortality was 0% for both groups.
CONCLUSIONS: The early, primary and secondary efficacy success rates for surgical versus. device closure of ASD were not statistically different; however, the complication rate was lower and the length of hospital stay was shorter for device closure than for surgical repair. Appropriate patient selection is an important factor for successful device closure. Transcatheter closure of secundum ASD using the ASO is a safe and effective alternative to surgical repair.
|
Abbreviations and Acronyms
| | ASD | | atrial septal defect | | ASO | | Amplatzer septal occluder | | CI | | confidence interval | | FDA | | Food and Drug Administration | | IRB | | Institutional Review Board | | TEE | | transesophageal echocardiography | | TTE | | transthoracic echocardiography |
|
Atrial septal defect (ASD) is a common form of congenital heart disease accounting for approximately 10% of all congenital cardiac defects (1). Surgical closure of ASD has been practiced for more than 45 years, and has been considered the standard treatment for patients with secundum ASD (2). Since the first attempt in 1976 by King and Mills (3), transcatheter closure of secundum ASD has evolved over the past three decades, and is being increasingly used in recent years (4–14). The Amplatzer septal occluder (ASO) is one of the commonly used devices. Previous reports have demonstrated that this device is safe and easy to use with a high success rate (12–15). This study was designed to directly compare the safety, efficacy and clinical utility of ASO for closure of secundum ASD with concurrent surgical repair results in a multicenter nonrandomized trial.
|
Methods
|
|---|
Organization and eligibility criteria.
Between March 1998 and March 2000, 29 pediatric cardiology centers with experience in transcatheter and surgical treatment of congenital heart disease participated in this trial. The study was approved by the institutional review board of each center and by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under an investigator-initiated Investigational Device Exemption. After the investigators have been selected, qualified and trained, patients with secundum ASD who were eligible for closure were enrolled. A monitor was designated to oversee the compliance with the study protocol.
Patients were enrolled into device or surgical closure group. The inclusion criteria for both groups included: 1) the presence of a secundum ASD (diameter of  38 mm by echocardiography for the device group; no limit for the surgical group); 2) a left-to-right shunt with a Qp/Qs ratio of  1.5:1 or the presence of right ventricular volume overload: and 3) patients with minimal shunt in the presence of symptoms (arrhythmias, transient ischemic attacks). Additional inclusion criteria for the device group required the presence of a distance of >5 mm from the margins of the ASD to the coronary sinus, atrioventricular valves and right upper pulmonary vein as measured by echocardiography. Exclusion criteria for both groups included: 1) the presence of associated congenital cardiac anomalies requiring surgical repair; 2) primum ASD; 3) sinus venosus ASD (including partial anomalous pulmonary venous drainage); 4) pulmonary vascular resistance >7 Woods units; 5) a right-to-left shunt at the atrial level with a peripheral arterial saturation <94%; 6) patients with recent myocardial infarction; and 7) unstable angina and decompensated congestive heart failure and patients with right and/or left ventricular decompensation with ejection fraction of <30%. An additional exclusion criterion for the device group was patients with multiple defects that could not be adequately covered by device(s). Also excluded from the study were patients with: 1) sepsis; 2) history of repeated pulmonary infection; 3) any type of serious infection <1 month before the procedure; 4) malignancy where life expectancy was <2 years; 5) intracardiac thrombi; 6) weight <8 kg; 7) inability to obtain informed consent; and 8) other contraindications to aspirin or other antiplatelet agents.
Once a patient met the enrollment criteria, the patient or the guardian was fully informed of the treatment options, then decided which option they would choose with their cardiologists. Nine participating institutions did not offer device closure during the study period. The collection of data was largely prospective; however, in 21 centers offering device closure, surgical patients were permitted to be enrolled retrospectively as well as prospectively if the surgery was performed after the date the IRB in that institution had approved the device closure protocol. This was done in an effort to expedite enrollment in the surgical arm and to ensure that the surgical data were contemporaneous. Informed consent was obtained from all patients or their guardians.
Device and delivery system.
The ASO (AGA Medical Corp., Golden Valley, Minnesota) is a self-centering device made of 0.004 to 0.0075 in Nitinol wire. A full description of the device has been reported previously (12, 13). In brief, the device consists of two expandable round discs with a 4-mm long connecting waist. Polyester mesh was added to the left and right atrial discs and the connecting waist to enhance thrombogenicity. The device size is dictated by the diameter of its waist. The device was available in various sizes ranging from 4 to 38 mm. The two flat discs extend radially beyond the central waist to provide secure anchorage. Both discs are angled slightly towards each other to ensure firm contact with the atrial septum. The delivery system consists of a cable, loader, delivery sheath and dilator and a pin vise. The delivery sheath initially had a platinum marker band at its tip. However, because of embolization of this band in three patients, this marker band has been removed.
Device implantation or surgical procedure.
The protocol of device closure has been reported previously in detail (12,13). Briefly, all procedures were performed under general anesthesia with endotracheal intubation and with continuous transesophageal echocardiographic (TEE) monitoring. After percutaneous entry of the femoral vein, a complete hemodynamic evaluation was performed. This was followed by an angiogram in the right upper pulmonary vein in the hepatoclavicular projection to further delineate the atrial septum. A sizing balloon catheter was introduced over an extra-stiff guide wire positioned in the left upper pulmonary vein to measure the balloon stretched diameter. Two methods of sizing (pulling technique and the stationary balloon dilation technique) were followed. The device chosen for closure was within 2 mm of the balloon-stretched diameter. The appropriate size device equivalent to the stretched diameter was then screwed on the cable and advanced inside the proper size sheath (6–14F). The sheath was usually positioned over the guide wire inside the left upper pulmonary vein or in the middle of the left atrium. Under fluoroscopic and TEE guidance, both discs of the device were deployed across the defect. Once the device has been deployed and released, repeat TEE and angiogram were performed to assess the result of closure. A dose of an appropriate antibiotic was given during the procedure and two doses at 8 h interval were given after. Patients were usually observed overnight and discharged home the following day. All patients were instructed about infective endocarditis prophylaxis for a total of six months after device placement. Aspirin 3–5 mg/kg was initiated 48 h before closure and continued for six months after.
For patients who underwent surgical closure, standard ASD repair under general endotracheal anesthesia was performed (2). The right atrium was opened after a sternotomy. The ASD was closed either by direct suture or using a pericardial or Goretex patch (W.L. Gore Associates, Flagstaff, Arizona). Patients were discharged home after three to five days in the hospital, depending on their clinical condition.
Echocardiographic interpretations.
Experienced echocardiographers from the participating institutions interpreted all echocardiograms (procedural and follow-up points). A study was classified to have complete closure, trivial residual shunt, small residual shunt, moderate residual shunt or large residual shunt according to a protocol reported by Boutin et al. (9). All of these echocardiograms were sent on SVHS tapes to the data management center at the manufacturing company’s headquarters. Echocardiograms of 108 patients in the device group and 87 patients in the surgical group were reviewed and interpreted by two independent experienced echocardiographers from institutions not participating in the trial. There were no discrepancies between the original interpretation and those of the independent reviewers.
Follow-up and end point measurements.
Patients who had device closure underwent a physical examination, an electrocardiogram, a chest radiograph and a transthoracic echocardiogram (TTE) with color Doppler at 24 h, six months and one year after the procedure. Patients who had surgical closure underwent the same tests at discharge from the hospital and at one-year follow-up.
Patients were considered to have successful ASD closure if they had no, trivial (<1-mm color jet width) or small (color jet width 1 to 2 mm) residual shunt as assessed by color Doppler echocardiography. Patients with moderate (color jet width >2–4 mm) or large (color jet width >4 mm) residual shunts were considered to have a failed procedure. End point measures for clinical utility were: 1) early efficacy success: successful closure of the defects by a device or operation without major complication, surgical reintervention, embolization or moderate or large residual shunt at discharge from hospital; 2) primary efficacy success (12-month success): successful closure of the ASD within 12 months postprocedure without the need for surgical repair; and 3) secondary efficacy success: successful device or surgical attempt in the absence of a major complication, or a surgical reintervention within the study period (March 1998 to March 2000).
Safety was defined as the absence of death or major complications, by a monitoring board at the manufacturer’s headquarters that was organized to classify the events as major and minor complications. Major complications included cerebral embolism, cardiac perforation with tamponade, endocarditis, repeat operation, death due to the procedure, cardiac arrhythmias requiring permanent pacemaker placement or long-term antiarrhythmic medication, or device embolization requiring immediate surgical removal. Minor complications included device embolization with percutaneous retrieval, cardiac arrhythmia with treatment, phrenic nerve injury, access site hematoma, other vascular access site complications, retroperitoneal hematoma, surgical wound complications and other procedural complications, as listed in the protocol. Pericardial effusion requiring medical management, evidence of device-associated thrombus formation without embolization (with or without treatment) and marker band embolization without known sequelae are also considered as minor complications.
Sample size and data analysis.
Sample size estimates were based on published statistics formulae (16). Previous studies have demonstrated rates of device and surgical closure to be between 90% and 98% (2,12,13). Therefore, 106 patients per study arm would be needed to provide an 80% probability of finding a significant difference using a one-tailed test at the 0.05 level. With an increase of 15% to allow for possible attrition, 125 patients in each study arm were required to yield a power over 80%.
Comparability of the retrospective and prospective surgical patients was performed before pooling the data for comparisons to the device group (in order to ascertain that there were no systematic differences between these two groups). Binary data were analyzed using Fisher’s exact test. Comparisons of continuous data measured at baseline for the study groups were analyzed using Welch’s modified t test, assuming the possibility of unequal variances. Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the age between two groups because it was not normally distributed. Cox proportional hazards regression models were computed for the device and surgical group. Covariate analysis was used to find potential risks for complication. Confidence intervals (CI) were calculated as appropriate. SPSS 10.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, Illinois) was used for the analysis. Data are expressed as mean ± SD or median and range as appropriate. A value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant.
|
Results
|
|---|
Study subjects.
A total of 614 patients were enrolled in the study. Figure 1 demonstrates the patient flow diagram. Four hundred forty-two patients with device closure and 154 patients with surgical closure satisfied the inclusion criteria and were included as subjects in each arm of the study.
View larger version (22K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 1 Flow diagram of all patients enrolled in the study. *Intent to treat was defined as patients that were screened for participation in the clinical trial and signed the informed consent. However, there was no attempt to place a device at that procedure due to various reasons (too large atrial septal defect for the available device, insufficient rim, or did not meet inclusion criteria). IRB = Institutional Review Board.
|
|
Comparability of treatment groups.
Thirty-seven patients in the surgical arm were collected retrospectively and 117 patients were collected prospectively. Justification analysis between the two groups of patients (retrospective vs. prospective) in the surgical arm demonstrated no differences in age, right ventricular enlargement, incidence of multiple ASDs, ASD size, length of hospital stay, and success and complication rate. Therefore, the data from both groups were pooled for analysis and comparison with the device group. Furthermore, there was no difference in gender distribution in either device group or surgical group, or among various trial centers (All p > 0.05). Table 1 demonstrates the demographic and baseline clinical data in each group. Patients in the device group were older and had a higher incidence of hypertension and stroke, whereas patients in the surgical group had a higher incidence of failure to thrive, respiratory infections, right axis deviation on electrocardiogram and multiple ASDs. The two groups had similar primary ASD size and right atrial and ventricular dilation.
Comparison of closure results.
Of 442 patients in the device group, 423 patients had 433 devices successfully deployed (95.7%) across the atrial septum. Four hundred thirteen patients received one device and 10 patients received two devices for multiple ASDs. In the other 19 (4.3%) patients, the attempt at securing a device across the atrial septum failed because of various reasons: 1) ASD was too large for the available device (n = 5); 2) insufficient atrial septal rim (n = 6); 3) anomalous right pulmonary vein connection (n = 6); and 4) marker band embolization (n = 1). One patient had immediate device embolization necessitating surgical removal.
The mean balloon stretched diameter of the primary ASD was 17.8 ± 6.2 mm (range 6 to 40 mm) and of the secondary ASD was 8.7 ± 1.4 mm (range 5 to 23 mm). The mean Qp/Qs ratio was 2.1 ± 0.8 (range 0.7 to 7.7). Of the 441 patients in whom data described the direction of atrial shunting, 404 (91.6%) had a left-to-right shunt, 34 (7.7%) had a bidirectional shunt and 3 (0.7%) had a right-to-left shunt. The mean device size for the primary ASD was 18.1 ± 6.1 mm (range 6 to 38 mm) and 10.4 ± 4.2 mm (range 6 to 20 mm) for the secondary ASD. The mean fluoroscopy time was 20.7 ± 12.8 min (range 3.3 to 75.5 min). A total of 413 patients (97.6%) (95% CI 95.7% to 98.9%) had immediate successful closure, including 130 (30.7%) with complete closure, 227 (53.7%) with trivial residual shunt and 56 (13.2%) with small residual shunt. Ten patients (2.4%) had moderate (n = 7) or large (n = 3) residual shunt.
In the surgical closure group, all patients had a successful operation. The comparison of immediate closure results, procedure time and length of hospital stay are demonstrated in Table 2.
At 24-h follow-up, 409 patients (96.7%) (95% CI 94.5% to 98.2%) in the device group had successful closure, including 307 (72.6%) with complete closure, 40 (9.5%) with trivial residual shunt and 62 (14.7%) with small residual shunt. Fourteen (3.3%) patients had moderate (n = 11) or large (n = 3) residual shunt. Twenty-four patients from the surgical group had echocardiographic data available at 24 h. All had complete closure.
A total of 387 (91.5%) patients in the device group had complete six-month follow-up. Of those, 376 patients had successful closure. Therefore, the success rate at the six-month follow-up was 97.2% (95% CI 95.0% to 98.6%). Eleven patients (2.8%) had moderate (n = 9) or large (n = 2) residual shunt. Because the six-month follow-up was not part of the surgical follow-up protocol, only 19 surgical patients had six-month follow-up data. All had successful closure (one patient had trivial residual shunt) as documented by color Doppler TTE.
At 12-month follow-up, 331 patients from the device group had their evaluation completed. Of those, 326 patients had successful closure. Therefore, the success rate was 98.5% (95% CI 96.5% to 99.5%). Five (1.5%) patients had moderate (n = 4) or large (n = 1) residual shunt. One hundred nine patients from the surgical group completed the 12-month follow-up. Ninety-four had color Doppler TTE examination, and all had a successful closure (four patients had trivial residual and three patients had small residual shunt). Of the remaining 60 patients in the surgical group, five were excluded because of IRB lapse, 14 were confirmed closed at six months by TTE and 41 were assumed closed at the 12-month follow-up. Comparison of clinical outcomes between the two groups is demonstrated in Table 2.
Although closure results at 24-month follow-up was not the end point measure of this study, 52 patients from the device group had their 24-month evaluation. Forty-nine had complete closure, two had small residual shunt and one had moderate residual shunt. Thus the successful closure rate was 98.1%. The five patients with residual shunt (four moderate, one large) at the 12-month follow-up were evaluated at the two-year follow-up. Three of these patients had spontaneous closure of their shunt; one had a second procedure with implantation of a second device had complete closure and one patient still had large residual shunt being followed medically. No data on 24-month follow-up were available for the surgical group.
Comparison of complications.
There was no device-or surgical-related death in either group. Table 3 summarizes the complications encountered during the study period. Seven major complications occurred in the device group. Device or marker band embolization requiring surgical removal was the most common complication, which occurred in four patients in three different hospitals. Cardiac arrhythmias requiring major treatment occurred in two patients. Complete atrioventricular block was found at six-month follow-up in a 6-year old girl with an 11-mm ASD and aneurysm of the atrial septum. The patient had sinus rhythm alternating with slow junctional rhythm documented by 24-h ambulatory electrocardiogram before the procedure (17). A DVD Thera DR pacemaker (Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota) was implanted. Atrial fibrillation occurred in an 81-year-old patient requiring antiarrhythmic medication. Cerebral embolism occurred in a 14-year-old girl with a 17-mm ASD. This patient had an episode of numbness and weakness in her right leg, right arm and the right side of her mouth seven days after the procedure. These symptoms resolved completely within 20 min. The patient had a normal neurological evaluation at the six-month follow-up.
Eight major complications were encountered in the surgical group. These included pulmonary edema and large pericardial effusion requiring two pericardiocentesis and prolonged intensive care unit stay in one patient; large pericardial effusion with tamponade requiring pericardiocentesis or catheter drainage in three patients; repeat surgery because of a large amount of drainage from the chest tube in two patients and surgical wound complications requiring sternal wire removal and other treatments in two patients. The incidence of major complications was higher in the surgical group by Fisher’s exact test (p = 0.030). Cox proportional hazards regression models also indicated that the device group had lower rates of major complications (p = 0.013). Because of the small number of major complications, covariate analysis was not done.
Minor complications occurred in 27 patients in the device group and 29 in the surgical group (p < 0.001) (Table 3). Two embolized devices were successfully retrieved percutaneously in the catheterization laboratory in two patients. The most common minor complication was cardiac arrhythmias in both groups. The incidence of any complications was significantly greater in the surgical group (p < 0.001). Cox proportional hazards regression models also demonstrated that the device group had significantly lower rates of complications (p < 0.001). Adding covariates of age, history of congestive heart failure, failure to thrive and respiratory infection did not change this conclusion. None of the covariates contributed significantly to the Cox regression model. Figure 2 demonstrates the curves of probability of freedom from any complications in the device and surgical groups. All but one patient with complications (major or minor) returned for the one-year follow-up; all were well with no sequelae.
View larger version (19K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 2 Comparison of curves of freedom from complication probability between device group and surgical group. Lighter lines beside each curve are the 95% confidence interval levels.
|
|
|
Discussion
|
|---|
The ASO is a relatively new device for transcather closure of secundum ASD (12–14,18) Its main advantages include: the self-centering mechanism, leading to better complete closure rates; delivery through relatively small introducing sheaths; and simple placement technique and retrievability before release. Previous clinical studies have compared the closure results of this device with historical surgical series (12–15). This is the first multicenter controlled study for the efficacy, clinical utility and safety of the ASO for closure of secundum ASD by comparison with concurrent surgical closure results.
Comparisons of efficacy and utility.
Surgical closure of ASD has been considered the standard treatment for ASD for more than 45 years (2). Although the perioperative mortality in most cardiac surgical centers approaches zero, residual shunting after surgical closure is not rare, and its incidence varies from 2% to 7.9% in the long-term follow-up data (19,20).
In this study, the 12-month follow-up of our 94 surgical patients with color Doppler TTE data indicated no residual shunt in 87 patients. Seven patients had trivial (n = 4) and small (n = 3) residual shunts. Even assuming that all surgical patients had successful closure, the early, primary and secondary efficacy success rates were not significantly higher than in the patients who underwent device closure of their ASDs. This is in accordance with a previous report from a single institution with a large experience in surgical and device closure of ASD (21). Their 61 patients with ASD who underwent closure using the ASO had the same immediate successful closure rate (98%) achieved by open surgical repair. Therefore, our multicenter study confirms that the efficacy and utility of ASO for closing secundum ASD is the same as those of surgical closure.
In our study, 4.3% of patients in the device group had a failed procedural attempt for various reasons. Most of these failures were due to the large size of ASD and the unavailability of larger devices at the time. With the availability of larger devices (>34 mm in diameter), some of those patients could have undergone successful closure of their ASD. The ASO manufacturer has also modified the delivery sheath by removing the marker band positioned at the tip of the sheath to prevent further embolization of the marker band. Anatomical conditions such as insufficient rims or the presence of anomalous pulmonary drainage are limitations for device closure of ASD. Therefore, although transcatheter closure of ASD by an ASO has similar efficacy to surgical closure, surgical intervention will still be required for patients with defects unsuitable for device closure.
Comparison of safety.
The mortality in both groups of patients was zero. This is in accordance with the previous reports in the current era (2,10–13,22–24). However, there were complications in both surgical patients and device closure patients. Most of the major complications in the surgical patients were due to large pericardial effusion with tamponade or other severe symptoms. Pericardiocentesis or catheter drainage was required to treat the effusion. Thus, these patients required prolonged intensive care unit or hospital stay and other treatments. Minor morbidity occurred in 17.8% of the surgical patients. Those complications were mainly cardiac arrhythmias and pericardial effusion. The overall morbidity in this surgical cohort was lower than previously reported in other series (24). Galal et al. reported a major complication rate of 8.8%, a moderate complication rate of 6.1% and a mild complication rate of 67% in their 232 adult patients who underwent surgical repair of isolated secundum ASD. This difference might have been due to the younger age of our surgical patients. Other complications of surgical ASD repair reported by others such as sepsis, renal failure (24), duodenal ulcer (21) and atrial flutter/fibrillation identified at long-term follow-up (25,26) were not encountered in our patients.
One patient who underwent device closure had a rare major complication of a cerebral embolism. This patient had complete recovery.
Cardiac arrhythmias and conduction abnormalities were the most common complications encountered. Although most of these were transient, one patient required pacemaker implantation. Another problem of device closure is the chance of device embolization, which occurred in 1.1% of the patients in this study. But this still compares favorably with previous studies using either the ASO or other devices (4,21). For patients with embolization occurring during or immediately after the procedure, the device could be easily retrieved percutaneously in the catheterization laboratory or by operation. One patient who came for follow-up inadvertently after one week from implantation was found to have a 24-mm device embolized to the pulmonary artery. This patient was playing American football within 72 h from closure. The device was successfully retrieved in the catheterization laboratory. The manufacturer has recommended no contact sports for a month and has also recommended a chest radiograph after one week in all patients after that case. We believe that device embolization can be prevented or minimized. Most of the cases of embolization occurred during the early learning curve of the operators. Increased operator experience and the use of TEE during implantation should minimize this complication.
Nevertheless, our study indicates that the overall complication rate was much lower in the device closure patients than the current surgical patients. Furthermore, there are other potential advantages favoring device closure of ASD. These include avoidance of thoracotomy and cardiopulmonary bypass and shortened hospital stay, with less use of hospital resources with potential money saving. Additionally, there are other advantages that could not be objectively measured. These include the psychological advantages for patients and their families and the economic use of time for family and patients due to the shorter recuperation period (27). The use of fluoroscopy to guide device placement is a disadvantage; however, the fluoroscopy time needed to implant the ASO is short and compares favorably with other devices (7,9,10,11). Radiation time can be reduced further with increased operator experience and with the aggressive use of TEE or intracardic echocardiographic monitoring of the procedure (28). Some investigators even have performed catheter closure of ASD using the ASO under TEE guidance alone without fluoroscopy (29). We believe that the use of TEE with judicious use of fluoroscopy should result in improved success and minimize device embolization. Finally, the U.S. FDA has approved the ASO for routine clinical use in children and adults with secundum ASD. Furthermore, the FDA required formal supervised training of physicians planning to use the ASO for closure of ASD. The manufacturer requires physicians planning to use the device to be proctored by a physician experienced in the use of ASO.
Study limitations.
The first limitation of this study is that the design was not a randomized trial. It would have been difficult if not impossible to perform a randomized study for ASD closure for many logistic and ethical reasons. The second limitation is that the two groups of patients were not comparable in age and in number of patients with multiple ASDs. The disparity in age was due to a high number of adult patients in the device group that were referred by cardiologists in centers not involved with transcatheter device closure. The age disparity explains the differences in body weight and height. Nevertheless, although the device group included a large number of adult patients with age up to 82 years, which might have increased the chance of complications, the efficacy was similar to and the complication rate was lower than surgical patients. Furthermore, the incidence of complications in the surgical group was not age related. Appropriate patient selection and operator’s experience are important factors for successful device closure.
In conclusion, despite the limitations of this study, our results demonstrate that the early successful closure rate and primary and secondary efficacy success rates were not statistically different in patients with ASD who underwent transcatheter device closure using the ASO and those patients who underwent surgical repair. However, the complication rate was lower and the length of hospital stay was shorter for device closure compared with surgical closure. Therefore, transcatheter device closure using an ASO seems to be a safe and effective alternative treatment for secundum ASD.
|
Appendix I
|
|---|
Device Group Investigators (listed by the order of numbers of patients enrolled): Ziyad M. Hijazi, MD, MPH, University of Chicago Children’s Hospital and New England Medical Center; Wolfgang Radtke, MD, Medical University of South Carolina; Donald J. Hagler, MD, Mayo Clinic; Albert Rocchini, MD, University of Michigan; David Balzer, MD, Washington University at St. Louis; David Wax, MD, Children’s Memorial Medical Center; Robert H. Beekman III, MD, University of Cincinnati Medical Center; Makram R. Ebeid, MD, University of Mississippi Medical Center; John Moore, MD, John Murphy, MD, du Pont Hospital for Children; Jose Ettedgui, MD, Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh; John Cheatham, MD, Zahid Amin, MD, University of Nebraska and Creighton University; Frank F. Ing, MD, Children’s Hospital–San Diego; Michael Slack, MD, Joel Lutterman, MD, Arizona Pediatric Cardiology; Thomas K. Jones, MD, Children’s Hospital and Medical Center–Seattle; Thomas Doyle, MD, Vanderbilt Children’s Hospital; John Bass, MD, Fairview University Medical Center; Michael Slack, MD, Children’s National Medical Center Washington DC; Daphne Hsu, MD, Columbia–Presbyterian Medical Center; Ranae Larson, MD, Loma Linda University Medical Center; John Moore, MD, St. Christopher’s Children’s Hospital; Hitendra Patel, MD, New England Medical Center.
The investigators in the surgical group are listed by the order of numbers of patients as: Thomas Zellers, MD, University of Texas, SW Medical School; Andrew N. Pelech, MD, Children’s Hospital of Wisconsin; Albert Rocchini, MD, University of Michigan; Donald Hagler, MD, Mayo Clinic; William S. McMahon, MD, The University of Alabama at Birmingham; Daniel E. Miga, MD, Cook Children’s Heart Center; Harm Velvis, MD, Albany Medical Center Hospital; Mark H. Hoyer, MD, University of Florida College of Medicine; John Moore, MD, St. Christopher’s Children’s Hospital; David Balzer, MD, Washington University at St. Louis; Michael S. Vance, MD, Children’s Hospital of the Kings Daughter; Elman G. Frantz, MD, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Wolfgang Radtke, MD, Medical University of South Carolina; Hitendra Patel, MD, New England Medical Center; Thomas K. Jones, MD, Children’s Hospital and Medical Center–Seattle; Jose Ettedgui, MD, Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh; John Murphy, MD, duPont Hospital for Children; Makram R. Ebeid, MD, University of Mississippi Medical Center, John Bass, MD, Fairview University; Zahid Amin, MD, University of Nebraska and Creighton University; David Wax, MD, Children’s Memorial Medical Center.
|
Appendix II
|
|---|
Members of Data Safety Monitoring Board: Jamie Lohr, MD, University of Minnesota, MN; Peter Hesslein, MD, University of Minnesota, MN; Demetre Nicoloff, MD, Cardiac Surgical Association, Minneapolis, MN; Dorothree Aeppli, Statistician, St. Paul, MN.
|
Footnotes
|
|---|
This study was supported by a research grant from AGA Medical Corporation, Golden Valley, Minnesota.
|
References
|
|---|
1. Carlgren LE. The incidence of congenital heart disease in children born in Gothenburg 1941–1950. Br Heart J. 1959;21:40–50[Free Full Text]
2. Kirklin JW, Barratt-Boyes BG. Cardiac Surgery. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Churchill Livingstone; 1993. p. 609–644
3. King TD, Mills NL. Secundum atrial septal defects: nonoperative closure during cardiac catheterization. JAMA. 1976;235:2506–2509[Abstract/Free Full Text]
4. Rome JJ, Keane JF, Perry SB, Spevak PJ, Lock JE. Double-umbrella closure of atrial septal defects: initial clinical applications. Circulation. 1990;82:751–758[Abstract/Free Full Text]
5. Das GS, Voss G, Jarvis G, Wyche K, Gunther R, Wilson RF. Experimental atrial septal defect closure with a new, transcatheter, self-centering device. Circulation. 1993;88:1754–1764[Abstract/Free Full Text]
6. Latson LA. The CardioSEAL device: history, techniques, results. J Intervent Cardiol. 1998;11:501–505
7. Prieto LR, Foreman CK, Cheatham JP, Latson LA. Intermediate-term outcome of transcatheter secundum atrial septal defect closure using the Bard Clamshell Septal Umbrella. Am J Cardiol. 1996;78:1310–1312[CrossRef][Medline]
8. Justo RN, Nykanen DG, Boutin C, McCrindle BW, Freedom RM, Benson LN. Clinical impact of transcatheter closure of secundum atrial septal defects with the double umbrella device. Am J Cardiol. 1996;77:889–892[CrossRef][Medline]
9. Boutin C, Musewe NN, Smallhorn JF, Dyck JD, Kobayashi T, Benson LN. Echocardiographic follow-up of atrial septal defect after catheter closure by double-umbrella device. Circulation. 1993;88:621–627[Abstract/Free Full Text]
10. Pedra CA, Pihkala J, Lee KJ, et al. Transcatheter closure of atrial septal defects using the Cardio-Seal implant. Heart. 2000;84:320–326[Abstract/Free Full Text]
11. Rao PS, Berger F, Rey C, et alInternational Buttoned Device Trial Group. Results of transvenous occlusion of secundum atrial septal defects with the fourth generation buttoned device: comparison with first, second and third generation devices. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;36:583–592[Abstract/Free Full Text]
12. Masura J, Gavora P, Formanek A, Hijazi ZM. Transcatheter closure of secundum atrial septal defects using the new self-centering Amplatzer septal occluder: initial human experience. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn. 1997;42:388–393[CrossRef][Medline]
13. Thanopoulos BD, Laskari CV, Tsaousis GS, Zarayelyan A, Vekiou A, Papadopoulos GS. Closure of atrial septal defects with the Amplatzer occlusion device: preliminary results. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998;31:1110–1116[Abstract/Free Full Text]
14. Hijazi ZM, Cao Q, Patel HT, Rhodes J, Hanlon KM. Transesophageal echocardiographic results of catheter closure of atrial septal defect in children and adults using the Amplatzer device. Am J Cardiol. 2000;85:1387–1390[CrossRef][Medline]
15. Cao Q, Radtke W, Berger F, Zhu W, Hijazi ZM. Transcatheter closure of multiple atrial septal defects: Initial results and value of two- and three-dimensional transoesophageal echocardiography. Eur Heart J. 2000;21:941–947[Abstract/Free Full Text]
16. Snedecor GW, Cochran WG. Statistical Methods. 7th ed. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press; 1980. p. 104–129
17. Hill SL, Berul CI, Patel HT, et al. Early ECG abnormalities associated with transcatheter closure of atrial septal defects using the Amplatzer septal occluder. J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2000;4:469–474[CrossRef][Medline]
18. Sharafuddin MJA, Gu X, Titus JL, Urness M, Cervera-Ceballos JJ, Amplatz K. Transvenous closure of secundum atrial septal defects: preliminary results with a new self-expanding Nitinol prosthesis in a swine model. Circulation. 1997;95:2162–2168[Abstract/Free Full Text]
19. Meijboom F, Hess J, Szatmari A, et al. Long-term follow-up (9 to 20 years) after surgical closure of atrial septal defect at a young age. Am J Cardiol. 1993;72:1431–1434[CrossRef][Medline]
20. Pastorek JS, Allen HD, Davis JT. Current outcomes of surgical closure of secundum atrial septal defect. Am J Cardiol. 1994;74:75–77[CrossRef][Medline]
21. Berger F, Vogel M, Alexi-Meskishvili V, Lange PE. Comparison of results and complications of surgical and Amplatzer device closure of atrial septal defects. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1999;118:674–678[Abstract/Free Full Text]
22. Byrne JG, Adams DH, Mitchell ME, Cohn LH. Minimally invasive direct access for repair of atrial septal defect in adults. Am J Cardiol. 1999;84:919–922[CrossRef][Medline]
23. Konstantinides S, Geibel A, Olschewski M, et al. A comparison of surgical and medical therapy for atrial septal defect in adults. N Engl J Med. 1995;333:469–473[Abstract/Free Full Text]
24. Galal MO, Wobst A, Halees Z, et al. Peri-operative complications following surgical closure of atrial septal defect type II in 232 patients—a baseline study. Eur Heart J. 1994;15:1381–1384[Abstract/Free Full Text]
25. Murphy JG, Gersh BJ, McGoon MD, et al. Long-term outcome after surgical repair of isolated atrial septal defect: follow-up at 27 to 32 years. N Engl J Med. 1990;323:1645–1650[Abstract]
26. Gatzoulis MA, Freeman MA, Siu SC, Webb GD, Louise H. Atrial arrhythmia after surgical closure of atrial septal defects in adults. N Engl J Med. 1999;340:839–846[Abstract/Free Full Text]
27. Rao PS. Transcatheter closure of atrial septal defect: are we there yet? J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998;31:1117–1119[Free Full Text]
28. Hijazi ZM, Wang Z, Cao QL, Koenig P, Waight D, Lang R. Transcatheter closure of a trial septal defects and patent foramen ovale under intracardiac echocardiographic guidance: feasibility and comparison with transesophageal echocardiography. Cathet Cardiovasc Interv. 2001;52:194–199[CrossRef][Medline]
29. Ewert P, Berger F, Daehnert I, et al. Transcatheter closure of atrial septal defects without fluoroscopy: feasibility of a new method. Circulation. 2000;101:847–849[Abstract/Free Full Text]
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
|
|
 
A.-R. Fathi, P. Eshtehardi, and B. Meier
Patent foramen ovale and neurosurgery in sitting position: a systematic review
Br. J. Anaesth.,
May 1, 2009;
102(5):
588 - 596.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. A. Warnes, R. G. Williams, T. M. Bashore, J. S. Child, H. M. Connolly, J. A. Dearani, P. del Nido, J. W. Fasules, T. P. Graham Jr, Z. M. Hijazi, et al.
ACC/AHA 2008 Guidelines for the Management of Adults With Congenital Heart Disease: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Develop Guidelines on the Management of Adults With Congenital Heart Disease) Developed in Collaboration With the American Society of Echocardiography, Heart Rhythm Society, International Society for Adult Congenital Heart Disease, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.,
December 2, 2008;
52(23):
e143 - e263.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. A. Warnes, R. G. Williams, T. M. Bashore, J. S. Child, H. M. Connolly, J. A. Dearani, P. del Nido, J. W. Fasules, T. P. Graham Jr, Z. M. Hijazi, et al.
ACC/AHA 2008 Guidelines for the Management of Adults With Congenital Heart Disease: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Develop Guidelines on the Management of Adults With Congenital Heart Disease): Developed in Collaboration With the American Society of Echocardiography, Heart Rhythm Society, International Society for Adult Congenital Heart Disease, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons
Circulation,
December 2, 2008;
118(23):
e714 - e833.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Z. M. Hijazi and S. M. Awad
Pediatric Cardiac Interventions
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. Intv.,
December 1, 2008;
1(6):
603 - 611.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. Karamlou, B. S. Diggs, R. M. Ungerleider, B. W. McCrindle, and K. F. Welke
The Rush to Atrial Septal Defect Closure: Is the Introduction of Percutaneous Closure Driving Utilization?
Ann. Thorac. Surg.,
November 1, 2008;
86(5):
1584 - 1591.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Sharp and I. Malik
Secundum atrial septal defects: time to close them all?
Heart,
September 1, 2008;
94(9):
1120 - 1122.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. E.J. Thomson, A. L. Crowley, J. F. Heitner, P. J. Cawley, J. W. Weinsaft, H. W. Kim, M. Parker, R. M. Judd, J. K. Harrison, and R. J. Kim
Direct En Face Imaging of Secundum Atrial Septal Defects by Velocity-Encoded Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance in Patients Evaluated for Possible Transcatheter Closure
Circ Cardiovasc Imaging,
July 1, 2008;
1(1):
31 - 40.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Ben Zekry, S. Guthikonda, S. H. Little, S. F. Nagueh, K. M. Garcia, and W. A. Zoghbi
Percutaneous closure of atrial septal defect.
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. Img.,
July 1, 2008;
1(4):
515 - 517.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. M. Gaca, J. J. Jaggers, L. T. Dudley, and G. S. Bisset III
Repair of Congenital Heart Disease: A Primer--Part 2
Radiology,
July 1, 2008;
248(1):
44 - 60.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. Hongxin, S. Lijun, Z.-j. Wang, J. Zi, W.-l. Zhang, H.-z. Zhang, G. Wenbin, and C.-w. Zou
Intraoperative device closure of large secundum atrial septal defects; a safe alternative to transcatheter closure
Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg.,
June 1, 2008;
33(6):
1055 - 1060.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Z. Luqman, J. A. Ansari, H. Ullah, and M. M. Amanullah
Retrograde aortic perfusion dislodges a dislodged Amplatzer device
J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg.,
March 1, 2008;
135(3):
698 - 699.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. J. Sommer, Z. M. Hijazi, and J. F. Rhodes Jr
Pathophysiology of Congenital Heart Disease in the Adult: Part I: Shunt Lesions
Circulation,
February 26, 2008;
117(8):
1090 - 1099.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Bonatti, N. Bonaros, S. Muller, and T. Bartel
Completely endoscopic removal of a dislocated Amplatzer atrial septal defect closure device
Interactive CardioVascular and Thoracic Surgery,
February 1, 2008;
7(1):
130 - 132.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. Hongxin, G. Wenbin, S. Lijun, W. Zhengjun, L. Hao, Z. Chengwei, D. Liang, and Y. Guidao
Intraoperative device closure of secundum atrial septal defect with a right anterior minithoracotomy in 100 patients.
J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg.,
October 1, 2007;
134(4):
946 - 951.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. A. Diab, Q.-L. Cao, E. A. Bacha, and Z. M. Hijazi
Device closure of atrial septal defects with the Amplatzer septal occluder: Safety and outcome in infants.
J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg.,
October 1, 2007;
134(4):
960 - 966.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. Butera, M. Carminati, M. Chessa, L. Piazza, A. Micheletti, D. G. Negura, R. Abella, A. Giamberti, and A. Frigiola
Transcatheter Closure of Perimembranous Ventricular Septal Defects: Early and Long-Term Results
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.,
September 18, 2007;
50(12):
1189 - 1195.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. E. Lock
Device Availability for the Child With Heart Disease
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.,
June 5, 2007;
49(22):
2222 - 2222.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. K. Jones, L. A. Latson, E. Zahn, C. E. Fleishman, J. Jacobson, R. Vincent, K. Kanter, and Multicenter Pivotal Study of the HELEX Septal Occl
Results of the U.S. Multicenter Pivotal Study of the HELEX Septal Occluder for Percutaneous Closure of Secundum Atrial Septal Defects
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.,
June 5, 2007;
49(22):
2215 - 2221.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Misra, A. Sadiq, N. Namboodiri, and J. Karunakaran
The 'aortic rim' recount: embolization of interatrial septal occluder into the main pulmonary artery bifurcation after atrial septal defect closure
Interactive CardioVascular and Thoracic Surgery,
June 1, 2007;
6(3):
384 - 386.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. Lee, I-C. Tsai, Y.-C. Fu, S.-L. Jan, C.-C. Wang, Y. Chang, and M.-C. Chen
MDCT Evaluation After Closure of Atrial Septal Defect with an Amplatzer Septal Occluder
Am. J. Roentgenol.,
May 1, 2007;
188(5):
W431 - W439.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I. Inglessis and M. J. Landzberg
Interventional Catheterization in Adult Congenital Heart Disease
Circulation,
March 27, 2007;
115(12):
1622 - 1633.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. A. Alsaileek, A. Omran, M. Godman, and H. K. Najm
Echocardiographic visualization of laceration of atrial septum during balloon sizing of atrial septal defect
Eur J Echocardiogr,
March 1, 2007;
8(2):
155 - 157.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. Butera, M. Carminati, M. Chessa, L. Piazza, R. Abella, D. G. Negura, A. Giamberti, B. Claudio, A. Micheletti, Y. Tammam, et al.
Percutaneous closure of ventricular septal defects in children aged <12: early and mid-term results
Eur. Heart J.,
December 1, 2006;
27(23):
2889 - 2895.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. A. Contrafouris, A. C. Chatzis, N. M. Giannopoulos, M. Milonakis, T. Kousi, G. Kirvassilis, and G. E. Sarris
Emergency surgical intervention for runaway atrial septal defect closure devices: A word of caution.
J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg.,
November 1, 2006;
132(5):
1234 - 1235.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. S. Maimon, S. Ratnapalan, A. Do, J. A. Kirsh, G. J. Wilson, and L. N. Benson
Cardiac Perforation 6 Weeks After Percutaneous Atrial Septal Defect Repair Using an Amplatzer Septal Occluder
Pediatrics,
November 1, 2006;
118(5):
e1572 - e1575.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. Webb and M. A. Gatzoulis
Atrial Septal Defects in the Adult: Recent Progress and Overview
Circulation,
October 10, 2006;
114(15):
1645 - 1653.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Hanslik, U. Pospisil, U. Salzer-Muhar, S. Greber-Platzer, and C. Male
Predictors of Spontaneous Closure of Isolated Secundum Atrial Septal Defect in Children: A Longitudinal Study
Pediatrics,
October 1, 2006;
118(4):
1560 - 1565.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N. Dagres, G. Karatasakis, F. Panou, G. Athanassopoulos, T. Maounis, E. Tsougos, K. Kourea, I. Malakos, D. Th. Kremastinos, and D. V. Cokkinos
Pre-treatment with Irbesartan attenuates left atrial stunning after electrical cardioversion of atrial fibrillation
Eur. Heart J.,
September 1, 2006;
27(17):
2062 - 2068.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. W. Nugent, A. Britt, K. Gauvreau, G. E. Piercey, J. E. Lock, and K. J. Jenkins
Device Closure Rates of Simple Atrial Septal Defects Optimized by the STARFlex Device
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.,
August 1, 2006;
48(3):
538 - 544.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
G Santoro, M Pascotto, S Caputo, F Cerrato, M Cappelli Bigazzi, M T Palladino, C Iacono, M Carrozza, M G Russo, and R Calabro
Similar cardiac remodelling after transcatheter atrial septal defect closure in children and young adults
Heart,
July 1, 2006;
92(7):
958 - 962.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. W. S. Soo, D. G. Healy, K. Walsh, and F. Wood
Inferior vena cava and coronary sinus obstruction after percutaneous atrial septal defect device closure requiring surgical revision
J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg.,
June 1, 2006;
131(6):
1405 - 1406.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
P A Davlouros, K Niwa, G Webb, and M A Gatzoulis
The right ventricle in congenital heart disease
Heart,
April 1, 2006;
92(suppl_1):
i27 - i38.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
V. L. Vida, J. Barnoya, M. O'Connell, J. Leon-Wyss, L. A. Larrazabal, and A. R. Castaneda
Surgical Versus Percutaneous Occlusion of Ostium Secundum Atrial Septal Defects: Results and Cost-Effective Considerations in a Low-Income Country
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.,
January 17, 2006;
47(2):
326 - 331.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Pawelec-Wojtalik, M. Wojtalik, W. Mrowczynski, R. Surmacz, and S. A. Quereshi
Comparison of cardiac function in children after surgical and Amplatzer occluder closure of secundum atrial septal defects
Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg.,
January 1, 2006;
29(1):
89 - 92.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M S Spence and S A Qureshi
Complications of transcatheter closure of atrial septal defects
Heart,
December 1, 2005;
91(12):
1512 - 1514.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
V. Costache, O. Chavanon, F. Thony, and D. Blin
Aortic arch embolization of an Amplatzer(R) occluder after an atrial septal defect closure: hybrid operative approach without circulatory arrest
Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg.,
August 1, 2005;
28(2):
340 - 342.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. Bartel, T. Konorza, U. Neudorf, T. Ebralize, H. Eggebrecht, A. Gutersohn, and R. Erbel
Intracardiac echocardiography: an ideal guiding tool for device closure of interatrial communications
Eur J Echocardiogr,
March 1, 2005;
6(2):
92 - 96.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. Y. Lee, M. J. Siegel, C. M. Chu, F. R. Gutierrez, and H. W. Kort
Amplatzer Atrial Septal Defect Occluder for Pediatric Patients: Radiographic Appearance
Radiology,
November 1, 2004;
233(2):
471 - 476.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
E N Swartz
Is transcatheter device occlusion as good as open heart surgery for closure of atrial septal defects?
Arch. Dis. Child.,
July 1, 2004;
89(7):
687 - 688.
[Full Text]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. A. Hopkins, A. A. Bert, B. Buchholz, K. Guarino, and M. Meyers
Surgical patch closure of atrial septal defects
Ann. Thorac. Surg.,
June 1, 2004;
77(6):
2144 - 2149.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Giardini, A. Donti, R. Formigari, S. Specchia, D. Prandstraller, G. Bronzetti, M. Bonvicini, and F. M. Picchio
Determinants of cardiopulmonary functional improvement after transcatheter atrial septal defect closure in asymptomatic adults
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.,
May 19, 2004;
43(10):
1886 - 1891.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. A. Wu, J. F. Malouf, J. A. Dearani, D. J. Hagler, G. S. Reeder, G. W. Petty, and B. K. Khandheria
Patent Foramen Ovale in Cryptogenic Stroke: Current Understanding and Management Options
Arch Intern Med,
May 10, 2004;
164(9):
950 - 956.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. Suda, M.-J. Raboisson, E. Piette, N. S. Dahdah, and J. Miro
Reversible atrioventricular block associated with closure of atrial septal defects using the amplatzer device
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.,
May 5, 2004;
43(9):
1677 - 1682.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U. Krumsdorf, S. Ostermayer, K. Billinger, T. Trepels, E. Zadan, K. Horvath, and H. Sievert
Incidence and clinical course of thrombus formation on atrial septal defect and patient foramen ovale closure devices in 1,000 consecutive patients
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.,
January 21, 2004;
43(2):
302 - 309.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. W. Moore and D. S. Levi
Transcatheter closure of atrial shunts: Focus on a lingering issue
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.,
January 21, 2004;
43(2):
310 - 312.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I. R.A. Goldsmith, T. Bartel, T. Konorza, J. Arjumand, T. Ebradlidze, H. Eggebrecht, G. Caspari, U. Neudorf, and R. Erbel
Intracardiac Echocardiography Use in Children * Response
Circulation,
September 9, 2003;
108
(10):
e76 - e76.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. Butera, G. De Rosa, M. Chessa, L. Rosti, D. G. Negura, P. Luciane, A. Giamberti, E. Bossone, and M. Carminati
Transcatheter closure of atrial septal defect in young children: Results and follow-up
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.,
July 16, 2003;
42(2):
241 - 245.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. Bartel, T. Konorza, J. Arjumand, T. Ebradlidze, H. Eggebrecht, G. Caspari, U. Neudorf, and R. Erbel
Intracardiac Echocardiography Is Superior to Conventional Monitoring for Guiding Device Closure of Interatrial Communications
Circulation,
February 18, 2003;
107(6):
795 - 797.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Y. Suematsu, S. Takamoto, Y. Kaneko, T. Ohtsuka, H. Takayama, Y. Kotsuka, and A. Murakami
Beating Atrial Septal Defect Closure Monitored by Epicardial Real-Time Three-Dimensional Echocardiography Without Cardiopulmonary Bypass
Circulation,
February 11, 2003;
107(5):
785 - 790.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
L Swan and M.A Gatzoulis
Closure of atrial septal defects: is the debate over?
Eur. Heart J.,
January 2, 2003;
24(2):
130 - 132.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
Top
Abstract
Methods