Section of Interventional Cardiology, Cardiology Department, John Ochsner Heart and vascular Institute, Ochsner Clinic Foundation, New Orleans, LA, United States of America; The Tampa Bay Heart Institue at HCA Florida Northside Hospital, University of South Florida Morsani College of Medicine, HCA West FL Division GME Program, St. Petersburg, FL, United States of America.
Department of Internal Medicine, University of Nevada School of Medicine, Las Vegas, NV, United States of America.
Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2024 Jan;58:90-97. doi: 10.1016/j.carrev.2023.07.027. Epub 2023 Aug 3.
Multiple device closure (MDC) strategy has been used in treating of complex Atrial septal defects (ASDs) in adults. The safety profile of MDC compared to conventional single device closure (SDC) is unknown in this population. This report represents the first review examining the outcomes of single versus multiple device ASD closure in adults with ostium secundum defects.
Literature databases and manual search from their inception until June 30th, 2017 followed the Preferred Reporting Items of Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guideline. Main outcomes are 1) overall complication incidence, 2) arrhythmia incidence, 3) residual shunt rate. Each outcome profile was pooled by MDC and SDC, respectively and chi-square analysis was applied to examine statistical significance between MDC and SDC strategies (two-sided and p < .050).
A total of 1806 + studies were initially screened, and 20 studies were finally selected (MDC group, 147 patients; SDC group, 1706 patients). There was no difference in overall complication incidence (χ2 = 1.269; p = .259) and arrhythmia incidence (χ2 = 0.325; p = .568) between MDC and SDC. There was no difference in residual shunt rate between the SDC (4.10 %; 70/1706) and MDC groups (6.80 %; 10/147; χ2 = 2.387; p = .122).
The outcomes of percutaneous multiple ASD closure (MDC) seem to be safe and effective as compared to conventional single ASD (SDC) closure in terms of device - related complications and technical success of the procedure. Prospective registry data and randomized trials are needed to determine the long-term outcomes of percutaneous ASD closure using MDC.
多器械闭合(MDC)策略已被用于治疗成人复杂房间隔缺损(ASD)。与传统的单器械闭合(SDC)相比,这种策略在该人群中的安全性尚不清楚。本报告是首次对使用多器械与单器械闭合成人继发孔型 ASD 的结果进行审查。
从文献数据库和手动搜索中,检索从创建至 2017 年 6 月 30 日的文献,遵循系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目(PRISMA)指南。主要结局为 1)总体并发症发生率,2)心律失常发生率,3)残余分流率。分别对 MDC 和 SDC 的每种结局进行汇总,并应用卡方分析检验 MDC 和 SDC 策略之间的统计学意义(双侧,p <.050)。
最初筛选出 1806 项以上的研究,最终选择了 20 项研究(MDC 组,147 例患者;SDC 组,1706 例患者)。MDC 和 SDC 组之间的总体并发症发生率(χ2=1.269;p=.259)和心律失常发生率(χ2=0.325;p=.568)无差异。SDC(4.10%;70/1706)和 MDC 组(6.80%;10/147;χ2=2.387;p=.122)之间的残余分流率无差异。
与传统的单器械 ASD(SDC)闭合相比,经皮多 ASD 闭合(MDC)在器械相关并发症和手术成功率方面的结果似乎是安全且有效的。需要前瞻性登记数据和随机试验来确定使用 MDC 经皮 ASD 闭合的长期结果。