Children's Hospital of Georgia, Georgia Regents University, Augusta, Georgia.
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2014 Jan 1;83(1):84-92. doi: 10.1002/ccd.25175. Epub 2013 Sep 30.
The risk of erosion after Amplatzer septal occluder (ASO) device placement in atrial septal defects is well described. Aortic rim deficiency and use of over-sized device increase the risk of erosion. This study attempts to describe device characteristics, anatomical features and echocardiographic predictors that increase the risk of erosion.
From 2005 through 2012, 12 new cases, with nine confirmed and three suspected device erosions where pre-procedural, intra-procedural, and/or post-procedural echocardiograms were available and, were reviewed. Following parameters were evaluated: ASD location (high or low), rims deficiency and consistency, septal mal-alignment, dynamic nature of the defect; device edge relationship toward the transverse sinus (TS), atrial free wall tenting and the size of the defect compared with the size of the device used for closure.
We found poor posterior rim consistency, aortic rim absence (in multiple views) and absent aortic rim at O degree in 100% of the patients. Septal mal-alignment and dynamic ASD was present in nearly 50% of the cases. The device was over-sized in three patients only. A 26-mm device was the most common device that resulted in erosion. In cases, where patient had experienced bloody pericardial effusion and the device was in place, device tenting in the TS was observed. Surgical explantation of the device confirmed presence of erosion in all cases.
Aortic rim absence in multiple views, poor posterior rim consistency, septal mal-alignment, and dynamic ASD appear to be factors where erosion risk increases significantly. A thorough assessment of the device edge by echocardiography in short-axis may show device tenting of the atrial free wall into the TS. This finding should be a strong indictor to recommend surgical removal of device after occurrence of pericardial effusion.
Amplatzer 隔瓣缺损封堵器(ASO)装置放置后发生侵蚀的风险已有充分描述。主动脉缘缺损和使用过大的装置会增加侵蚀的风险。本研究试图描述增加侵蚀风险的装置特征、解剖特征和超声心动图预测因素。
2005 年至 2012 年,回顾了 12 例新病例,其中 9 例为确诊,3 例为疑似侵蚀病例,这些病例均有术前、术中及/或术后超声心动图资料。评估了以下参数:房间隔缺损(高位或低位)、缘缺损和一致性、隔瓣错位、缺损的动态性质;装置边缘与横窦(TS)的关系、心房游离壁向 TS 膨出以及缺损与用于封堵的装置大小的比较。
我们发现,在 100%的患者中,后缘一致性差、主动脉缘缺失(在多个切面)和 0 度无主动脉缘。近 50%的病例存在隔瓣错位和动态 ASD。仅 3 例患者的装置过大。最常见的侵蚀导致使用 26mm 的装置。在有血心包积液和装置在位的病例中,观察到装置向 TS 膨出。所有病例均经手术取出装置证实存在侵蚀。
多个切面主动脉缘缺失、后缘一致性差、隔瓣错位和动态 ASD 似乎是侵蚀风险显著增加的因素。超声心动图短轴切面全面评估装置边缘可能显示心房游离壁向 TS 膨出。心包积液发生后,如发现该征象,应强烈提示外科取出装置。