Key result
Transcatheter ASD closure is linked to ~8% higher RV function at 6 months versus surgical closure.
Why the study?
Studies evaluating atrial volume changes and the fate of tricuspid regurgitation following transcatheter versus surgical ASD closure using CMR were scarce.
Does transcatheter ASD closure compared to surgical closure improve cardiac volumetric changes and tricuspid regurgitation in adults with isolated secundum ASD?
Cohort (n=30)
No
Does transcatheter ASD closure compared to surgical closure improve cardiac volumetric changes and tricuspid regurgitation in adults with isolated secundum ASD?
Absolute Event Rate: 60.67% vs 52.73%
p-value: p=<0.001
Transcatheter ASD closure provides superior right and left ventricular functional recovery compared to surgical closure at 6 months, despite both achieving similar reductions in right heart volumes and tricuspid regurgitation.
Transcatheter ASD closure may be associated with better short-term RV recovery than surgery; leaves open confirmation in randomized trials.
BackgroundClosure of an atrial septal defect (ASD) reduces right heart volumes by eliminating shunting while improving left ventricle (LV) filling and function due to ventricular interdependence, thereby improving symptoms. Furthermore, studies on atrial volume changes following ASD closure are paucity. Functional tricuspid regurgitation (TR) is frequently seen in adult patients with ASD as a consequence of right ventricle (RV) dilatation. Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) is widely accepted as the gold standard method for measuring cardiac volume and mass.ObjectiveWe aimed at studying the cardiac volumetric changes preclosure and 6 months after transcatheter and surgical closure, as well as fate of TR, using CMR analysis. MethodsWe prospectively enrolled 30 adult patients with isolated secundum ASD who were referred for ASD closure. CMR evaluates the right and left atrial volumes, as well as the ventricular end diastolic and end systolic volume indexes (EDVI and ESVI), function, the mass index, and tricuspid regurgitant fraction.ResultsRV volumes decreased in both groups when compared to baseline (P value 0.001), with the device group experiencing more reduction in volumes and improvement in RV function after closure (P 0.001). In each group, the absolute value of RV mass decreased significantly from the baseline (P value (0.001)), but with no difference between groups (P value 0.31). Improvement in functional TR occurred in both groups. LVEDVI increased significantly in both groups (P values 0.001 and 0.005, respectively), with a significant improvement in the LV mass index (P value = 0.01) and a non-significant difference in LVESVI. Only device closure resulted in an improvement in LV function (63.53 ± 3.85 versus 67.13 ± 4.34, P value =0.01). There was a significant reduction in right atrial (RA) volume (P value = 0.5), with a trend to decrease in left atrial (LA) volume but it was insignificant, with no difference between groups.ConclusionOur findings revealed that both procedures resulted in normalization of ventricular volume and reduction of RA volumes, with only the device group showing improvement in ventricular function. Functional TR improved after closure with either a device or a surgical approach.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mohamed et al. (2021) conducted a cohort in Isolated secundum atrial septal defect (n=30). Transcatheter ASD closure vs. Surgical ASD closure was evaluated on Right ventricular function at 6 months (p=<0.001). Transcatheter ASD closure significantly improved right ventricular function at 6 months compared to surgical closure (60.67% vs 52.73%, p<0.001) and resulted in greater reduction of right ventricular volumes.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: