BACKGROUND: Surgical and transcatheter management of muscular ventricular septal defects (MVSD) have independent drawbacks. Hybrid procedures are becoming increasingly utilized to manage congenital cardiac lesions including MVSDs. This report describes the mid-term results of perventricular device closure of MVSDs at a single institution. METHODS: The cardiology database of patients who underwent attempted perventricular MVSD closure from a single institution was reviewed. RESULTS: Between January 2004 and December 2009, six patients underwent attempted perventricular MVSD closure in the operating room. Mean age was 9.8 ± 9.1 months; mean weight was 7.2 ± 3.7 kg. In five patients, closure was successful without use of bypass. In one patient, the device embolized to the left ventricle after release and patch closure of the MVSD was performed on cardiopulmonary bypass. The mean interval from the procedure to the most recent echocardiogram for the patients with successful perventricular closure was 39.8 ± 25.2 months. Three patients demonstrated no residual shunt at the last echocardiogram. Two patients had mild, hemodynamically insignificant shunting; one had a left ventricular pseudoaneurysm that was embolized during repeat catheterization. CONCLUSIONS: Perventricular closure of MVSDs is attractive because it overcomes the limitations of surgery and catheterization. Additionally, it spares the need for cardiopulmonary bypass and its comorbidities. In some instances, however, successful deployment of the device is not possible. Our mid-term results demonstrate overall success but identify possible complications that are not immediately identified in the short term.
BACKGROUND: Surgical and transcatheter management of muscular ventricular septal defects (MVSD) have independent drawbacks. Hybrid procedures are becoming increasingly utilized to manage congenital cardiac lesions including MVSDs. This report describes the mid-term results of perventricular device closure of MVSDs at a single institution. METHODS: The cardiology database of patients who underwent attempted perventricular MVSD closure from a single institution was reviewed. RESULTS: Between January 2004 and December 2009, six patients underwent attempted perventricular MVSD closure in the operating room. Mean age was 9.8 ± 9.1 months; mean weight was 7.2 ± 3.7 kg. In five patients, closure was successful without use of bypass. In one patient, the device embolized to the left ventricle after release and patch closure of the MVSD was performed on cardiopulmonary bypass. The mean interval from the procedure to the most recent echocardiogram for the patients with successful perventricular closure was 39.8 ± 25.2 months. Three patients demonstrated no residual shunt at the last echocardiogram. Two patients had mild, hemodynamically insignificant shunting; one had a left ventricular pseudoaneurysm that was embolized during repeat catheterization. CONCLUSIONS: Perventricular closure of MVSDs is attractive because it overcomes the limitations of surgery and catheterization. Additionally, it spares the need for cardiopulmonary bypass and its comorbidities. In some instances, however, successful deployment of the device is not possible. Our mid-term results demonstrate overall success but identify possible complications that are not immediately identified in the short term.