Cargando…

Minimally-invasive-perventricular-device-occlusion versus surgical-closure for treating perimembranous-ventricular-septal-defect: 3-year outcomes of a multicenter randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND: Minimally-invasive-perventricular-device-occlusion (MIPDO) combined superiority of surgical-repair and percutaneous-device-closure in treating perimembranous-ventricular-septal-defect (pmVSD). This study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of MIPDO for treating pmVSD, comparing with...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lu, Wenxin, Zhang, Fengwen, Fan, Taibing, Zhao, Tianli, Han, Yu, Hu, Xiaopeng, Li, Qi, Shi, Hao, Pan, Xiangbin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: AME Publishing Company 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8107524/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34012561
http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/jtd-20-3298
_version_ 1783689971078529024
author Lu, Wenxin
Zhang, Fengwen
Fan, Taibing
Zhao, Tianli
Han, Yu
Hu, Xiaopeng
Li, Qi
Shi, Hao
Pan, Xiangbin
author_facet Lu, Wenxin
Zhang, Fengwen
Fan, Taibing
Zhao, Tianli
Han, Yu
Hu, Xiaopeng
Li, Qi
Shi, Hao
Pan, Xiangbin
author_sort Lu, Wenxin
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Minimally-invasive-perventricular-device-occlusion (MIPDO) combined superiority of surgical-repair and percutaneous-device-closure in treating perimembranous-ventricular-septal-defect (pmVSD). This study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of MIPDO for treating pmVSD, comparing with surgical-repair. METHODS: Patients aged ≥3 months with isolated pmVSDs were randomized to undergo either surgical or MIPDO procedure, with the median follow-up time of 49 months. The primary outcome was the rate of complete pmVSD closure at discharge. The secondary outcomes included the adverse events during hospitalization and follow-up, chest tube output volume, blood transfusion volume, procedural duration, ventilation time, hospitalization duration and hospitalization cost. Also, perioperative cardiac performance and systemic conditions were evaluated. RESULTS: Of the 313 patients (9 months to 42 years old; median, 4 years old) with pmVSDs recruited from 3 centers, 100 were finally enrolled and randomly allocated 1:1 into two groups. The non-inferiority (non-inferiority margin −8.0%) of MIPDO to surgical closure regarding efficacy was shown in both intention-to-treat (0, 95% CI: −0.055 to 0.055) and per-protocol populations (0.02, 95% CI: −0.018 to 0.058). Although the rate of adverse events was similar between groups, the MIPDO group showed superiority in procedural duration, ventilation time, chest tube output volume, postoperative hospitalization time and hospitalization cost compared with surgical group (P<0.05). Moreover, MIPDO method showed comparable perioperative cardiac performance with milder change of systemic condition. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with pmVSDs, MIPDO method showed non-inferiority to surgical closure in efficacy for both intention-to-treat and per-protocol population with easier perioperative recovery, economic benefit and promising outcomes.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8107524
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher AME Publishing Company
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-81075242021-05-18 Minimally-invasive-perventricular-device-occlusion versus surgical-closure for treating perimembranous-ventricular-septal-defect: 3-year outcomes of a multicenter randomized clinical trial Lu, Wenxin Zhang, Fengwen Fan, Taibing Zhao, Tianli Han, Yu Hu, Xiaopeng Li, Qi Shi, Hao Pan, Xiangbin J Thorac Dis Original Article BACKGROUND: Minimally-invasive-perventricular-device-occlusion (MIPDO) combined superiority of surgical-repair and percutaneous-device-closure in treating perimembranous-ventricular-septal-defect (pmVSD). This study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of MIPDO for treating pmVSD, comparing with surgical-repair. METHODS: Patients aged ≥3 months with isolated pmVSDs were randomized to undergo either surgical or MIPDO procedure, with the median follow-up time of 49 months. The primary outcome was the rate of complete pmVSD closure at discharge. The secondary outcomes included the adverse events during hospitalization and follow-up, chest tube output volume, blood transfusion volume, procedural duration, ventilation time, hospitalization duration and hospitalization cost. Also, perioperative cardiac performance and systemic conditions were evaluated. RESULTS: Of the 313 patients (9 months to 42 years old; median, 4 years old) with pmVSDs recruited from 3 centers, 100 were finally enrolled and randomly allocated 1:1 into two groups. The non-inferiority (non-inferiority margin −8.0%) of MIPDO to surgical closure regarding efficacy was shown in both intention-to-treat (0, 95% CI: −0.055 to 0.055) and per-protocol populations (0.02, 95% CI: −0.018 to 0.058). Although the rate of adverse events was similar between groups, the MIPDO group showed superiority in procedural duration, ventilation time, chest tube output volume, postoperative hospitalization time and hospitalization cost compared with surgical group (P<0.05). Moreover, MIPDO method showed comparable perioperative cardiac performance with milder change of systemic condition. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with pmVSDs, MIPDO method showed non-inferiority to surgical closure in efficacy for both intention-to-treat and per-protocol population with easier perioperative recovery, economic benefit and promising outcomes. AME Publishing Company 2021-04 /pmc/articles/PMC8107524/ /pubmed/34012561 http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/jtd-20-3298 Text en 2021 Journal of Thoracic Disease. All rights reserved. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/Open Access Statement: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits the non-commercial replication and distribution of the article with the strict proviso that no changes or edits are made and the original work is properly cited (including links to both the formal publication through the relevant DOI and the license). See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Original Article
Lu, Wenxin
Zhang, Fengwen
Fan, Taibing
Zhao, Tianli
Han, Yu
Hu, Xiaopeng
Li, Qi
Shi, Hao
Pan, Xiangbin
Minimally-invasive-perventricular-device-occlusion versus surgical-closure for treating perimembranous-ventricular-septal-defect: 3-year outcomes of a multicenter randomized clinical trial
title Minimally-invasive-perventricular-device-occlusion versus surgical-closure for treating perimembranous-ventricular-septal-defect: 3-year outcomes of a multicenter randomized clinical trial
title_full Minimally-invasive-perventricular-device-occlusion versus surgical-closure for treating perimembranous-ventricular-septal-defect: 3-year outcomes of a multicenter randomized clinical trial
title_fullStr Minimally-invasive-perventricular-device-occlusion versus surgical-closure for treating perimembranous-ventricular-septal-defect: 3-year outcomes of a multicenter randomized clinical trial
title_full_unstemmed Minimally-invasive-perventricular-device-occlusion versus surgical-closure for treating perimembranous-ventricular-septal-defect: 3-year outcomes of a multicenter randomized clinical trial
title_short Minimally-invasive-perventricular-device-occlusion versus surgical-closure for treating perimembranous-ventricular-septal-defect: 3-year outcomes of a multicenter randomized clinical trial
title_sort minimally-invasive-perventricular-device-occlusion versus surgical-closure for treating perimembranous-ventricular-septal-defect: 3-year outcomes of a multicenter randomized clinical trial
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8107524/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34012561
http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/jtd-20-3298
work_keys_str_mv AT luwenxin minimallyinvasiveperventriculardeviceocclusionversussurgicalclosurefortreatingperimembranousventricularseptaldefect3yearoutcomesofamulticenterrandomizedclinicaltrial
AT zhangfengwen minimallyinvasiveperventriculardeviceocclusionversussurgicalclosurefortreatingperimembranousventricularseptaldefect3yearoutcomesofamulticenterrandomizedclinicaltrial
AT fantaibing minimallyinvasiveperventriculardeviceocclusionversussurgicalclosurefortreatingperimembranousventricularseptaldefect3yearoutcomesofamulticenterrandomizedclinicaltrial
AT zhaotianli minimallyinvasiveperventriculardeviceocclusionversussurgicalclosurefortreatingperimembranousventricularseptaldefect3yearoutcomesofamulticenterrandomizedclinicaltrial
AT hanyu minimallyinvasiveperventriculardeviceocclusionversussurgicalclosurefortreatingperimembranousventricularseptaldefect3yearoutcomesofamulticenterrandomizedclinicaltrial
AT huxiaopeng minimallyinvasiveperventriculardeviceocclusionversussurgicalclosurefortreatingperimembranousventricularseptaldefect3yearoutcomesofamulticenterrandomizedclinicaltrial
AT liqi minimallyinvasiveperventriculardeviceocclusionversussurgicalclosurefortreatingperimembranousventricularseptaldefect3yearoutcomesofamulticenterrandomizedclinicaltrial
AT shihao minimallyinvasiveperventriculardeviceocclusionversussurgicalclosurefortreatingperimembranousventricularseptaldefect3yearoutcomesofamulticenterrandomizedclinicaltrial
AT panxiangbin minimallyinvasiveperventriculardeviceocclusionversussurgicalclosurefortreatingperimembranousventricularseptaldefect3yearoutcomesofamulticenterrandomizedclinicaltrial