Key result
Novel ReAces occluder proves noninferior to traditional occluders, achieving ~98% complete ASD closure at 12 months.
Why the study?
Traditional occluders for atrial septal defect have drawbacks including incomplete endothelialization and difficulty in atrial septum puncture post implantation, which the novel ReAces occluder aims to address.
Does the novel ReAces occluder achieve noninferior complete closure rates compared to a traditional Amplatzer-like occluder in patients with atrial septal defects?
RCT (n=126)
randomized
Yes
Does the novel ReAces occluder achieve noninferior complete closure rates compared to a traditional Amplatzer-like occluder in patients with atrial septal defects?
Absolute Event Rate: 98.4% vs 98.4%
The novel ReAces occluder is noninferior to traditional Amplatzer-like occluders for transcatheter ASD closure at 12 months, while offering a thinner central region and lower post-procedural migraine disability scores.
Noninferior closure supports ReAces adoption for ASD; extends randomized device options beyond traditional occluders.
Background Traditional occluders for atrial septal defect have 2 drawbacks: incomplete endothelialization and difficulty in achieving atrial septum puncture post implantation. The novel occluder ReAces was designed to address these 2 clinical pain points. In this study, we aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of ReAces with a traditional Amplatzer‐like atrial septal defect occluder. Methods This was a multicenter, randomized, parallel‐controlled, noninferiority clinical trial. Patients with atrial septal defects were enrolled and randomly implanted with a ReAces or a traditional Amplatzer‐like occluder. The primary outcome was complete closure rate at 12 months post implantation. The Migraine Disability Assessment scores before and after the procedure were recorded. Results Sixty‐two patients were implanted with ReAces and 64 patients with a traditional occluder. At the 12‐month follow‐up, complete closure was achieved in 61 patients in the trial group (98.4%) and 63 patients in the control group (98.4%), which demonstrated noninferiority (95% CI, −4.4% to 4.3%). No severe adverse events occurred during 12 months of follow‐up except a case of device dislodgement in the trial group. The thickness of the central region of ReAces at the 12‐month follow‐up was significantly lower than that of the traditional device (6.8±3.7 mm versus 12.2±5.2, P <0.0001). The trial group showed a significantly lower Migraine Disability Assessment score (0.4±2.4 versus 1.4±4.1, P =0.042) and a lower proportion of patients with a nonzero Migraine Disability Assessment score (5.6% versus 18.2%, P =0.042) at the 1‐month follow‐up. Conclusions The efficacy of ReAces was noninferior to that of a traditional Amplatzer‐like occluder for transcatheter atrial septal defect closure. ReAces had a thinner central region during the follow‐up and a lower Migraine Disability Assessment score at the 1‐month follow‐up. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT05371366.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fang et al. (2026) conducted an RCT in Atrial septal defect (n=126). ReAces occluder vs. Traditional Amplatzer-like atrial septal defect occluder was evaluated on Complete closure rate at 12 months post implantation (95% CI -4.4% to 4.3%). The novel ReAces occluder was noninferior to a traditional Amplatzer-like occluder for complete closure of atrial septal defects at 12 months (98.4% vs 98.4%; 95% CI, -4.4% to 4.3%).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: