Suppr超能文献

经导管及术中器械闭合术与房间隔缺损的外科修补术

Transcatheter and intraoperative device closure and surgical repair for atrial septal defect.

作者信息

Qiu Han-Fan, Chen Qiang, Hong Zhi-Nuan, Chen Liang-Wan, Huang Xue-Shan

机构信息

Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Union Hospital, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, 350001, People's Republic of China.

出版信息

J Cardiothorac Surg. 2019 Jul 19;14(1):136. doi: 10.1186/s13019-019-0957-0.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter and intraoperative device closure for atrial septal defect (ASD) are widely applied to reduce the incision size and the potential for injury during cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) in conventional surgical repair. No studies had been conducted to compare the safety and efficiency of these three treatments.

METHODS

From January 2018 to April 2018, 87 patients with an isolated ASD who had undergone transcatheter device closure (n = 45), intraoperative device closure (n = 22) and surgical repair (n = 20) were retrospectively reviewed and further analyzed to compare these three treatments.

RESULTS

The successful closure rate was similar in the three groups. There was a significant difference in aortic cross-clamping time, CPB duration and operative time between the surgical group and the device groups. The length of intensive care unit stay, postoperative mechanical ventilation time and length of hospital stay were shorter in the two device groups than in the surgical group. The incision was the most extended in the surgical group. Regarding major adverse events, no significant differences were found among the three groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Transcatheter and intraoperative device closure and surgical repair for ASD are all safe and effective. Considering their respective disadvantages and advantages, the transcatheter approach may be the first choice for an isolated secundum ASD, the intraoperative approach may be the second choice, and surgical repair may be the last resort.

摘要

背景

经导管和术中封堵器闭合房间隔缺损(ASD)被广泛应用,以减小传统外科修复中体外循环(CPB)期间的切口大小和受伤可能性。尚未有研究对这三种治疗方法的安全性和有效性进行比较。

方法

回顾性分析2018年1月至2018年4月期间87例孤立性ASD患者,这些患者分别接受了经导管封堵器闭合术(n = 45)、术中封堵器闭合术(n = 22)和外科修复术(n = 20),并进一步比较这三种治疗方法。

结果

三组的成功闭合率相似。手术组与封堵器组在主动脉阻断时间、CPB持续时间和手术时间方面存在显著差异。两个封堵器组的重症监护病房停留时间、术后机械通气时间和住院时间均短于手术组。手术组的切口最长。关于主要不良事件,三组之间未发现显著差异。

结论

ASD的经导管和术中封堵器闭合术以及外科修复术均安全有效。考虑到它们各自的优缺点,经导管方法可能是孤立性继发孔型ASD的首选,术中方法可能是次选,而外科修复可能是最后的选择。

相似文献

引用本文的文献

本文引用的文献

5
Predictors of Atrial Septal Defect Occluder Dislodgement.房间隔缺损封堵器移位的预测因素
Int Heart J. 2015;56(4):428-31. doi: 10.1536/ihj.15-065. Epub 2015 Jun 26.
8
Transcatheter closure of atrial septal defects: how large is too large?经导管封堵房间隔缺损:多大算太大?
Cardiovasc Diagn Ther. 2014 Jun;4(3):213-4. doi: 10.3978/j.issn.2223-3652.2014.04.02.

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验