OBJECTIVE: Given the increasing popularity of percutaneous closure of ventricular septal defects (VSDs), a comparative analysis of the different treatments (surgical vs. percutaneous closure) for VSDs is needed. METHODS: This is a single center, retrospective clinical study. A total of 2,178 patients with VSDs were enrolled, including 852 patients treated with percutaneous closure (device group) and 1,326 patients underwent traditional surgical repair (surgical group). Several characteristics (e.g. procedure success rate, complications, blood transfusions) were compared between the 2 groups. RESULTS: There were no differences (p > 0.05) between the device and surgical groups according to the success rates (99.8 vs. 100%) and occurrences of main complications (1.9 vs. 2.5%). The incidence of minor complications was significantly lower in the device group (0.6%, 5/852) than the surgical group (6.4%, 85/1,326) (p < 0.01). No blood transfusions were needed in the device group, while 136 patients (10.3%) required blood transfusions in the surgical group. The duration of hospital stay was shorter in the device group than in the surgical group (3.2 vs. 12.9 days, p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Percutaneous VSD closure is an effective method with fewer complications, shorter hospital stay and good cosmetic effect. It can serve as a reasonable alternative treatment for traditional open heart surgery.
OBJECTIVE: Given the increasing popularity of percutaneous closure of ventricular septal defects (VSDs), a comparative analysis of the different treatments (surgical vs. percutaneous closure) for VSDs is needed. METHODS: This is a single center, retrospective clinical study. A total of 2,178 patients with VSDs were enrolled, including 852 patients treated with percutaneous closure (device group) and 1,326 patients underwent traditional surgical repair (surgical group). Several characteristics (e.g. procedure success rate, complications, blood transfusions) were compared between the 2 groups. RESULTS: There were no differences (p > 0.05) between the device and surgical groups according to the success rates (99.8 vs. 100%) and occurrences of main complications (1.9 vs. 2.5%). The incidence of minor complications was significantly lower in the device group (0.6%, 5/852) than the surgical group (6.4%, 85/1,326) (p < 0.01). No blood transfusions were needed in the device group, while 136 patients (10.3%) required blood transfusions in the surgical group. The duration of hospital stay was shorter in the device group than in the surgical group (3.2 vs. 12.9 days, p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Percutaneous VSD closure is an effective method with fewer complications, shorter hospital stay and good cosmetic effect. It can serve as a reasonable alternative treatment for traditional open heart surgery.