Next article Search Articles Instructions for authors  Access Statistics | Citation Manager  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE  

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed579    
    Printed26    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded88    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal

Transcatheter closure of multiple secundum atrial septal defects using multiple occluder devices: A comparative experience between pediatric and adult patients


Department of Pediatric Cardiology, Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases, Madras Medical Mission, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Kothandam Sivakumar
Department of Pediatric Cardiology, Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases, The Madras Medical Mission, No 4A, Dr J J Nagar, Mogappair, Chennai - 600 037, Tamil Nadu
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/apc.apc_269_20

Rights and Permissions

Year : 2022  |  Volume : 15  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 128-137

 

SEARCH
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles

  Article in PDF (1,694 KB)
Email article
Print Article
Add to My List
Background: Device closure of multiple atrial septal defects (MASDs) is frequently done using a single centrally deployed septal or cribriform occluder, but multiple devices are needed for large defects separated more than 6 mm. There is a concern about complications while using multiple devices, especially in children. Methods: Patients who received multiple devices for closure of MASD were grouped according to their age and analyzed for procedural techniques, immediate and late complications. MASDs closed by a single device were not included. Balloon sizing was done when echocardiographic images were suboptimal before simultaneous device deployment through two venous accesses or sequential deployment through one access. Duration and number of antiplatelet drugs and residual flows were analyzed on follow-up. Results: Twenty-five patients received multiple devices. Balloon interrogation was performed in 16/18 adults but only in 2/7 children. Device size was 2–5 mm larger than echocardiographic defect size or equal to balloon waist. There were no procedural failures; 7/25 showed small postprocedural residual flows. Complications including embolization in one, arrhythmia in one, and cobra deformity in two were managed successfully. On a median follow-up of 5.5 years (1–12 years), residual flows disappeared in 4/7 and there were no major late complications. Conclusions: Use of multiple devices for closing MASD is feasible with good technical success. Echocardiography and balloon interrogation are the keys for success. Simultaneous deployment is often needed and sequential delivery is feasible rarely if the defects are far apart. Minor residual leaks are common but improve on follow-up. There are no significant new complications on long-term follow-up.






[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
 

 

 

 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 
 
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
  *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 
 ORIGINAL ARTICLE
 




Department of Pediatric Cardiology, Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases, Madras Medical Mission, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Kothandam Sivakumar
Department of Pediatric Cardiology, Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases, The Madras Medical Mission, No 4A, Dr J J Nagar, Mogappair, Chennai - 600 037, Tamil Nadu
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/apc.apc_269_20

Rights and Permissions

Background: Device closure of multiple atrial septal defects (MASDs) is frequently done using a single centrally deployed septal or cribriform occluder, but multiple devices are needed for large defects separated more than 6 mm. There is a concern about complications while using multiple devices, especially in children. Methods: Patients who received multiple devices for closure of MASD were grouped according to their age and analyzed for procedural techniques, immediate and late complications. MASDs closed by a single device were not included. Balloon sizing was done when echocardiographic images were suboptimal before simultaneous device deployment through two venous accesses or sequential deployment through one access. Duration and number of antiplatelet drugs and residual flows were analyzed on follow-up. Results: Twenty-five patients received multiple devices. Balloon interrogation was performed in 16/18 adults but only in 2/7 children. Device size was 2–5 mm larger than echocardiographic defect size or equal to balloon waist. There were no procedural failures; 7/25 showed small postprocedural residual flows. Complications including embolization in one, arrhythmia in one, and cobra deformity in two were managed successfully. On a median follow-up of 5.5 years (1–12 years), residual flows disappeared in 4/7 and there were no major late complications. Conclusions: Use of multiple devices for closing MASD is feasible with good technical success. Echocardiography and balloon interrogation are the keys for success. Simultaneous deployment is often needed and sequential delivery is feasible rarely if the defects are far apart. Minor residual leaks are common but improve on follow-up. There are no significant new complications on long-term follow-up.






[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*


        
Print this article     Email this article