Michael L O'Byrne1,2, Matthew J Gillespie3,4, Kevin F Kennedy5, Yoav Dori3,4, Jonathan J Rome3,4, Andrew C Glatz3,4,6. 1. Division of Cardiology, Children's National Medical Center, George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences. 2. Department of Pediatrics, George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences. 3. Division of Cardiology, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. 4. Department of Pediatrics, Perelman School of Medicine, The University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. 5. Mid America Heart Institute St. Luke's Health System. 6. Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Concern regarding aortic erosion has focused attention on the retro-aortic rim in patients undergoing device closure of atrial septal defects (ASD), but its effect on early outcomes is not well studied. METHODS: A multicenter retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing device occlusion of ASD between 1/2011-10/2014 was performed, using data from the IMproving Pediatric and Adult Congenital Treatment Registry. Subjects were divided between those with retro-aortic rim <5 and ≥5 mm. Primary outcomes were technical failure and major early adverse events. Case times were measured as surrogates of technical complexity. The effect of deficient retro-aortic rim on primary outcomes was assessed using hierarchical logistic regression, adjusting for other suspected covariates and assessing whether they represent independent risk factors RESULTS: 1,564 subjects (from 77 centers) were included, with deficient retro-aortic rim present in 40%. Technical failure occurred in 91 subjects (5.8%) and a major early adverse event in 64 subjects (4.1%). Adjusting for known covariates, the presence of a deficient retro-aortic rim was not significantly associated with technical failure (OR: 1.3, 95% CI: 0.9-2.1) or major early adverse event (OR: 0.7, 95% CI: 0.4-1. 2). Total case (P = 0.01) and fluoroscopy time (P = 0.02) were greater in subjects with deficient rim, but sheath time was not significantly different (P = 0.07). Additional covariates independently associated with these outcomes were identified. CONCLUSION: Deficient retro-aortic rim was highly prevalent but not associated with increased risk of technical failure or early adverse events. Studies with longer follow-up are necessary to assess other outcomes, including device erosion.
BACKGROUND: Concern regarding aortic erosion has focused attention on the retro-aortic rim in patients undergoing device closure of atrial septal defects (ASD), but its effect on early outcomes is not well studied. METHODS: A multicenter retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing device occlusion of ASD between 1/2011-10/2014 was performed, using data from the IMproving Pediatric and Adult Congenital Treatment Registry. Subjects were divided between those with retro-aortic rim <5 and ≥5 mm. Primary outcomes were technical failure and major early adverse events. Case times were measured as surrogates of technical complexity. The effect of deficient retro-aortic rim on primary outcomes was assessed using hierarchical logistic regression, adjusting for other suspected covariates and assessing whether they represent independent risk factors RESULTS: 1,564 subjects (from 77 centers) were included, with deficient retro-aortic rim present in 40%. Technical failure occurred in 91 subjects (5.8%) and a major early adverse event in 64 subjects (4.1%). Adjusting for known covariates, the presence of a deficient retro-aortic rim was not significantly associated with technical failure (OR: 1.3, 95% CI: 0.9-2.1) or major early adverse event (OR: 0.7, 95% CI: 0.4-1. 2). Total case (P = 0.01) and fluoroscopy time (P = 0.02) were greater in subjects with deficient rim, but sheath time was not significantly different (P = 0.07). Additional covariates independently associated with these outcomes were identified. CONCLUSION: Deficient retro-aortic rim was highly prevalent but not associated with increased risk of technical failure or early adverse events. Studies with longer follow-up are necessary to assess other outcomes, including device erosion.
Authors: Howaida El-Said; Sanjeet Hegde; Susan Foerster; William Hellenbrand; Jacqueline Kreutzer; Sara M Trucco; Ralf Holzer; Grant Burch; Ajay Mirani; Ramzi Nicolas; Diego Porras; Lisa Bergersen; John Moore Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2014-10-13 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Darren Mylotte; Stéphane P Quenneville; Mark A Kotowycz; Xuanqian Xie; James M Brophy; Raluca Ionescu-Ittu; Giuseppe Martucci; Louise Pilote; Judith Therrien; Ariane J Marelli Journal: Int J Cardiol Date: 2014-01-08 Impact factor: 4.164
Authors: John W Moore; Robert N Vincent; Robert H Beekman; Lee Benson; Lisa Bergersen; Ralf Holzer; Natalie Jayaram; Kathy Jenkins; Yan Li; Richard Ringel; Jonathan Rome; Gerard R Martin Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2014-12-16 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Michael L O'Byrne; Andrew C Glatz; David J Goldberg; Russell Shinohara; Yoav Dori; Jonathan J Rome; Matthew J Gillespie Journal: Congenit Heart Dis Date: 2014-09-16 Impact factor: 2.007
Authors: Michael L O'Byrne; Russell T Shinohara; Elena K Grant; Joshua P Kanter; Matthew J Gillespie; Yoav Dori; Jonathan J Rome; Andrew C Glatz Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2017-07-19 Impact factor: 4.749