Cargando…

Comparative outcomes of two competitive devices for retrograde closure of perimembranous ventricular septal defects

BACKGROUND: Retrograde closure of perimembranous ventricular septal defects (pmVSDs) is a well-established procedure. However, interventionists are still looking for the best closure device. METHODS: We performed a single-center retrospective review of 5-year-experience (from July 2015 to July 2020)...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Haddad, Raymond N., Saliba, Zakhia S.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10354815/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37476569
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2023.1215397
_version_ 1785075001175572480
author Haddad, Raymond N.
Saliba, Zakhia S.
author_facet Haddad, Raymond N.
Saliba, Zakhia S.
author_sort Haddad, Raymond N.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Retrograde closure of perimembranous ventricular septal defects (pmVSDs) is a well-established procedure. However, interventionists are still looking for the best closure device. METHODS: We performed a single-center retrospective review of 5-year-experience (from July 2015 to July 2020) with retrograde closure of pmVSDs using Amplatzer(TM) Duct Occluder II (ADOII) and KONAR-MF™ VSD occluder (MFO). Deficient sub-aortic rim (SAR) (≤2.5 mm for MFO and ≤3 mm for ADOII) was an exclusion criterion in defects with a diameter ratio (right-side exit/left-side entry) > 0.5. RESULTS: We identified 77 patients (57.1% males) with a median age of 4.3 years (IQR, 2.2–8.3) and a median weight of 16 kg (IQR, 11.2–24.5). 44 (57.1%) defects (22.7% with deficient SARs) with a median left-side defect diameter of 8.7 mm (IQR, 5.7–10) were closed with ADOIIs. 33 (42.9%) defects (51.5% with deficient SARs) with a median left-side defect diameter of 10.8 mm (IQR, 8.8–13.5) were closed with MFOs. One 7/5 MFO was removed before release and upsized to a 12/10 MFO. Implantation success rate was 100% with ADOII and 90.9% with MFO devices. Two MFOs were snare-recaptured after embolization, and one 9/7 MFO was snare-retrieved for a new onset of grade-2 aortic regurgitation that persisted afterward. Median follow-up was 3.3 years (IQR, 2.1–4.2) for ADOII and 2.3 years (IQR, 1.7–2.5) for MFO. No permanent heart block or death occurred. Freedom from left ventricular dilation was 94.62% at 36 months of follow-up. Freedom from residual shunt was 90.62% for MFO and 89.61% for ADOII at 24 months of follow-up. One 2.6-year-old patient with baseline mild aortic valve prolapse and trivial aortic regurgitation developed a grade-2 aortic regurgitation after 9/7 MFO implantation. He was treated surgically after two years without device extraction. One new grade-2 asymptomatic tricuspid regurgitation persisted at the last follow-up in the ADOII group. CONCLUSIONS: ADOII and MFO are complementary devices for effective retrograde closure of pmVSDs in children, including defects with absent or deficient SAR. ADOII is limited to smaller defects but offers a lower profile and a flexible left-side disk for better maneuverability over the aortic valve during retrograde implantation.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10354815
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-103548152023-07-20 Comparative outcomes of two competitive devices for retrograde closure of perimembranous ventricular septal defects Haddad, Raymond N. Saliba, Zakhia S. Front Cardiovasc Med Cardiovascular Medicine BACKGROUND: Retrograde closure of perimembranous ventricular septal defects (pmVSDs) is a well-established procedure. However, interventionists are still looking for the best closure device. METHODS: We performed a single-center retrospective review of 5-year-experience (from July 2015 to July 2020) with retrograde closure of pmVSDs using Amplatzer(TM) Duct Occluder II (ADOII) and KONAR-MF™ VSD occluder (MFO). Deficient sub-aortic rim (SAR) (≤2.5 mm for MFO and ≤3 mm for ADOII) was an exclusion criterion in defects with a diameter ratio (right-side exit/left-side entry) > 0.5. RESULTS: We identified 77 patients (57.1% males) with a median age of 4.3 years (IQR, 2.2–8.3) and a median weight of 16 kg (IQR, 11.2–24.5). 44 (57.1%) defects (22.7% with deficient SARs) with a median left-side defect diameter of 8.7 mm (IQR, 5.7–10) were closed with ADOIIs. 33 (42.9%) defects (51.5% with deficient SARs) with a median left-side defect diameter of 10.8 mm (IQR, 8.8–13.5) were closed with MFOs. One 7/5 MFO was removed before release and upsized to a 12/10 MFO. Implantation success rate was 100% with ADOII and 90.9% with MFO devices. Two MFOs were snare-recaptured after embolization, and one 9/7 MFO was snare-retrieved for a new onset of grade-2 aortic regurgitation that persisted afterward. Median follow-up was 3.3 years (IQR, 2.1–4.2) for ADOII and 2.3 years (IQR, 1.7–2.5) for MFO. No permanent heart block or death occurred. Freedom from left ventricular dilation was 94.62% at 36 months of follow-up. Freedom from residual shunt was 90.62% for MFO and 89.61% for ADOII at 24 months of follow-up. One 2.6-year-old patient with baseline mild aortic valve prolapse and trivial aortic regurgitation developed a grade-2 aortic regurgitation after 9/7 MFO implantation. He was treated surgically after two years without device extraction. One new grade-2 asymptomatic tricuspid regurgitation persisted at the last follow-up in the ADOII group. CONCLUSIONS: ADOII and MFO are complementary devices for effective retrograde closure of pmVSDs in children, including defects with absent or deficient SAR. ADOII is limited to smaller defects but offers a lower profile and a flexible left-side disk for better maneuverability over the aortic valve during retrograde implantation. Frontiers Media S.A. 2023-07-05 /pmc/articles/PMC10354815/ /pubmed/37476569 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2023.1215397 Text en © 2023 Haddad and Saliba. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Cardiovascular Medicine
Haddad, Raymond N.
Saliba, Zakhia S.
Comparative outcomes of two competitive devices for retrograde closure of perimembranous ventricular septal defects
title Comparative outcomes of two competitive devices for retrograde closure of perimembranous ventricular septal defects
title_full Comparative outcomes of two competitive devices for retrograde closure of perimembranous ventricular septal defects
title_fullStr Comparative outcomes of two competitive devices for retrograde closure of perimembranous ventricular septal defects
title_full_unstemmed Comparative outcomes of two competitive devices for retrograde closure of perimembranous ventricular septal defects
title_short Comparative outcomes of two competitive devices for retrograde closure of perimembranous ventricular septal defects
title_sort comparative outcomes of two competitive devices for retrograde closure of perimembranous ventricular septal defects
topic Cardiovascular Medicine
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10354815/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37476569
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2023.1215397
work_keys_str_mv AT haddadraymondn comparativeoutcomesoftwocompetitivedevicesforretrogradeclosureofperimembranousventricularseptaldefects
AT salibazakhias comparativeoutcomesoftwocompetitivedevicesforretrogradeclosureofperimembranousventricularseptaldefects