K M Krishnamoorthy1, Arun Gopalakrishnan1. 1. Department of Cardiology, Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute of Medical Sciences and Technology, Trivandrum, Kerala, India E-mail: kmkm@sctimst.ac.in.
Sir,The paper by El-Saiedi et al. is greatly appreciated for performing cost-effectiveness analysis of different devices for occlusion of patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) in children.[1] Including “regular” PDA occlude (ADO I) in a similar study would be interesting. It is generally considered cheaper. Aortic protrusion with ADO I is less than with ADO II.[2] When effectiveness alone is considered, ADO I was found to be the device of choice for PDA >3 mm with good success;[3] although, it was before the advent of ADO II. Comparison of ADO I, II and ADO II additional sizes showed that ADO I was convenient for medium- and large-sized PDA.[4]Thank you,
Authors: Marissa A Brunetti; Richard Ringel; Carl Owada; John Coulson; Jacky M Jennings; Mark H Hoyer; Allen D Everett Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2010-11-01 Impact factor: 2.692