Transcatheter Patent Ductus Arteriosus Closure in Children With Different Devices and Long-Term Results

Introduction: With the development of transcatheter interventional techniques and the introduction of next-generation duct occluder devices, transcatheter closure has become the first treatment option for patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) in pediatric patients. In this study, we compared the effectiveness and safety of different devices for transcatheter PDA closure in pediatric patients, focusing on long-term outcomes. Methods: A total of 235 patients aged 0-18 years who underwent transcatheter PDA closure at a tertiary care center between January 2005 and February 2020 were included. The medical records of the cases were retrospectively evaluated. Results: The median age of the patients was 2.3 years (range: 3.5 months to 17 years), with a mean weight of 12.8 kg (range: 5.7-43.2 kg). The mean PDA diameter at its narrowest point was 2.9 mm (range: 2.2-5.1 mm). Ductal anatomy was as follows: Type A in 98 (41.7%) patients, Type E in 36 (15.6%) patients, Type C in 32 (13.5%) patients, Type F in 27 (11.4%) patients, Type D in 23 (9.7%) patients, and Type B in 19 (8.1%) patients. Arterial access was used in 138 (57.1%) patients, venous + arterial access in 58 (24.6%) patients, and venous access only in 39 (16.5%) patients. Closure was performed with Amplatzer Duct Occluder (ADO; AGA Medical Corp., Golden Valley, MN, USA) II in 151 (64.2%) cases, ADO I in 43 (18.2%) cases, and coils in 41 (17.4%) cases. The mean fluoroscopy time and mean procedural time were 10.3 ± 4.2 minutes and 41 ± 7.2 minutes, respectively. The mean radiation dose was 1364 ± 497 cGy/min. The early closure rate after the procedure was 92%, while residual shunting on the first day post-procedure was observed in 1.8% of cases, decreasing to 0.1% at the one-month follow-up. The overall procedural success rate for all cases was 96.0%. The mean follow-up duration was 9.7 years (range: 2.9-13.8 years). Conclusion: For percutaneous PDA closure, ADO I devices are preferred for larger defects, whereas ADO II devices are prioritized for small- to medium-sized defects instead of coils.