Robert G Gray1, Shaji C Menon1, Joyce T Johnson2, Aimee K Armstrong3, Michael A Bingler4, John P Breinholt5, Damien Kenny6, John Lozier7, Joshua J Murphy8, Shyam K Sathanandam9, Nathaniel W Taggart10, Sara M Trucco11, Bryan H Goldstein12, Brent M Gordon13. 1. University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah. 2. Division of Pediatric Cardiology, Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago, Illinois. 3. Division of Pediatric Cardiology, C.S. Mott Children's Hospital, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 4. Division of Pediatric Cardiology, University of Missouri, Kansas City, Missouri. 5. Division of Pediatric Cardiology, University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, Texas. 6. Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois. 7. Division of Pediatric Cardiology, Mercy Medical Center, Des Moines, Iowa. 8. Division of Pediatric Cardiology, St Louis Children's Hospital, St Louis, Missouri. 9. Division of Pediatric Cardiology, Le Bonheur Children's Medical Center, Tennessee. 10. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 11. Division of Pediatric Cardiology, Children's Hospital of UPMC, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 12. Division of Pediatric Cardiology, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Ohio. 13. Division of Pediatric Cardiology, Loma Linda University Children's Hospital, California.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To describe acute and mid-term results of hybrid perventricular device closure of muscular ventricular septal defects (mVSDs). BACKGROUND: Perventricular device closure of mVSDs can mitigate technical limitations of percutaneous closure and need for cardiopulmonary bypass or ventriculotomy with a surgical approach. METHODS: This is a multicenter retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing hybrid perventricular mVSD device closure from 1/2004 to 1/2014. Procedural details, adverse events, outcomes, and follow-up data were collected. Patients were divided into two groups: (1) simple (mVSD closure alone) and (2) complex (mVSD closure with concomitant cardiac surgery). RESULTS: Forty-seven patients (60% female) underwent perventricular mVSD device closure at a median age of 5.2 months (IQR 1.8-8.9) and weight of 5.1 kg (IQR 4.0-6.9). Procedural success was 91% [100% (n = 22) simple and 84% (n = 21/25) complex]. Adverse events occurred in 19% (9/47) [9% (2/22) simple and 28% (7/25) complex]. Hospital length of stay (LOS) was shorter in the simple vs. complex group (4 vs. 14 days, P < 0.01). At mid-term follow-up of 19.2 months (IQR 2.3-43) 90% of pts had complete mVSD closure; none developed late heart block, increased atrioventricular (AV) valve insufficiency or ventricular dysfunction. CONCLUSIONS: Perventricular device closure of simple mVSD was associated with a high rate of procedural success, few adverse events, and short hospital LOS. Procedural adverse events were associated with the presence of concomitant complex surgery. Residual mVSD, AV valve insufficiency, or ventricular dysfunction were uncommon at mid-term follow-up.
OBJECTIVES: To describe acute and mid-term results of hybrid perventricular device closure of muscular ventricular septal defects (mVSDs). BACKGROUND: Perventricular device closure of mVSDs can mitigate technical limitations of percutaneous closure and need for cardiopulmonary bypass or ventriculotomy with a surgical approach. METHODS: This is a multicenter retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing hybrid perventricular mVSD device closure from 1/2004 to 1/2014. Procedural details, adverse events, outcomes, and follow-up data were collected. Patients were divided into two groups: (1) simple (mVSD closure alone) and (2) complex (mVSD closure with concomitant cardiac surgery). RESULTS: Forty-seven patients (60% female) underwent perventricular mVSD device closure at a median age of 5.2 months (IQR 1.8-8.9) and weight of 5.1 kg (IQR 4.0-6.9). Procedural success was 91% [100% (n = 22) simple and 84% (n = 21/25) complex]. Adverse events occurred in 19% (9/47) [9% (2/22) simple and 28% (7/25) complex]. Hospital length of stay (LOS) was shorter in the simple vs. complex group (4 vs. 14 days, P < 0.01). At mid-term follow-up of 19.2 months (IQR 2.3-43) 90% of pts had complete mVSD closure; none developed late heart block, increased atrioventricular (AV) valve insufficiency or ventricular dysfunction. CONCLUSIONS: Perventricular device closure of simple mVSD was associated with a high rate of procedural success, few adverse events, and short hospital LOS. Procedural adverse events were associated with the presence of concomitant complex surgery. Residual mVSD, AV valve insufficiency, or ventricular dysfunction were uncommon at mid-term follow-up.