Mario Giordano1, Gianpiero Gaio2, Giuseppe Santoro3, Maria Teresa Palladino2, Berardo Sarubbi4, Paolo Golino4, Maria Giovanna Russo2. 1. Paediatric Cardiology, University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", Monaldi Hospital, Naples, Italy. Electronic address: giordanomario1123@gmail.com. 2. Paediatric Cardiology, University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", Monaldi Hospital, Naples, Italy. 3. Paediatric Cardiology and GUCH Unit, Ospedale del Cuore "G. Pasquinucci", Massa, Italy. 4. Cardiology, University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", Monaldi Hospital, Naples, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure after a cryptogenic cerebral ischemic event is a routinely procedure. The most used device is Amplatzer™ PFO Occluder 25 mm, but PFOs with complex anatomy require larger device for closure. We compared Amplatzer™ Septal Occluder (ASO) device versus Amplatzer™ PFO Occluder 30 or 35 mm (A-PFO 30/35) about the safety of procedure and the presence of residual shunt during the follow-up. METHODS: From June 2002 to July 2016, 355 patients (pts) with PFO undergone closure at our institution. Among these ones, 70 pts (19.7%) had a PFO with complex anatomy and a single device with greater diameter was implanted. In these cases, the following devices were used: Gore® Septal Occluder (GSO) in 4 pts; ASO device in 33 pts (group I) and A-PFO 30/35 in 33 pts (group II). Patients treated with GSO device were excluded by our analysis. RESULTS: Comparing group I and group II, there weren't complications during the procedures. Two patients of group II were lost at follow-up. At last follow-up, 1 pt of group I (3%) and 10 pts of group II (32.3%) had a residual shunt (p < 0.01). 7 of 10 pts of group II and the only 1 of group I with residual shunt underwent a complete closure by Amplatzer™ Vascular Plug (AVP) devices. CONCLUSIONS: ASO devices and A-PFO 30/35 devices are both safe to close complex PFO; but A-PFO 30/35 is associated with a more incidence of residual shunt.
BACKGROUND:Patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure after a cryptogenic cerebral ischemic event is a routinely procedure. The most used device is Amplatzer™ PFO Occluder 25 mm, but PFOs with complex anatomy require larger device for closure. We compared Amplatzer™ Septal Occluder (ASO) device versus Amplatzer™ PFO Occluder 30 or 35 mm (A-PFO 30/35) about the safety of procedure and the presence of residual shunt during the follow-up. METHODS: From June 2002 to July 2016, 355 patients (pts) with PFO undergone closure at our institution. Among these ones, 70 pts (19.7%) had a PFO with complex anatomy and a single device with greater diameter was implanted. In these cases, the following devices were used: Gore® Septal Occluder (GSO) in 4 pts; ASO device in 33 pts (group I) and A-PFO 30/35 in 33 pts (group II). Patients treated with GSO device were excluded by our analysis. RESULTS: Comparing group I and group II, there weren't complications during the procedures. Two patients of group II were lost at follow-up. At last follow-up, 1 pt of group I (3%) and 10 pts of group II (32.3%) had a residual shunt (p < 0.01). 7 of 10 pts of group II and the only 1 of group I with residual shunt underwent a complete closure by Amplatzer™ Vascular Plug (AVP) devices. CONCLUSIONS: ASO devices and A-PFO 30/35 devices are both safe to close complex PFO; but A-PFO 30/35 is associated with a more incidence of residual shunt.
Authors: Simona Sperlongano; Mario Giordano; Giovanni Ciccarelli; Giuseppe Bassi; Marco Malvezzi Caracciolo D'Aquino; Carmen Del Giudice; Gianpiero Gaio; Antonello D'Andrea; Adriana Postolache; Maurizio Cappelli Bigazzi; Giancarlo Scognamiglio; Berardo Sarubbi; Maria Giovanna Russo; Paolo Golino; Patrizio Lancellotti Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-07-11 Impact factor: 4.964