Key result
Percutaneous device closure of secundum atrial septal defects under transesophageal echocardiography guidance resulted in a significantly shorter procedure time (28.70 vs 39.13 minutes) compared to intra-operative device closure.
Why the study?
Percutaneous ASD closure under transesophageal echocardiography guidance is an accepted alternative to fluoroscopy-guided closure but is not routinely used, prompting a comparison of clinical outcomes between percutaneous and intra-operative device closure without fluoroscopy.
Does percutaneous closure of atrial septal defects under TEE guidance improve procedural times and clinical outcomes compared to intra-operative device closure in patients with secundum ASD?
Observational (n=103)
No
Does percutaneous closure of atrial septal defects under TEE guidance improve procedural times and clinical outcomes compared to intra-operative device closure in patients with secundum ASD?
Absolute Event Rate: 28.7% vs 39.13%
p-value: p=<0.001
Percutaneous device closure of secundum ASDs under TEE guidance is safe and effective, offering shorter total procedure times and avoiding cardiopulmonary bypass and fluoroscopy, though it requires longer intracardiac manipulation than intra-operative closure.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
May support fluoroscopy-free percutaneous ASD closure for defects <25 mm; leaves open need for randomized comparisons with intraoperative approaches.
Zhu et al. (2020) conducted an observational in Secundum atrial septal defect (n=103). Percutaneous device closure vs. Intra-operative device closure was evaluated on Procedure time (minutes) (p=<0.001). Percutaneous device closure of secundum atrial septal defects under transesophageal echocardiography guidance resulted in a significantly shorter procedure time (28.70 vs 39.13 minutes) compared to intra-operative device closure.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: