| Literature DB >> 31472688 |
Haisong Bu1, Yifeng Yang1, Qin Wu2, Wancun Jin2, Tianli Zhao3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Traditional percutaneous device closure of perimembranous ventricular septal defects (PmVSDs) is a minimally invasive technique, but can result in high radiation exposure and can result in potential arterial complications. Here, we aimed to assess the safety and feasibility of device closure of PmVSDs via the femoral vein approach under transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) guidance in children.Entities:
Keywords: Femoral vein; Percutaneous device closure; Perimembranous ventricular septal defect; Radiation prevention; Transesophageal echocardiography
Year: 2019 PMID: 31472688 PMCID: PMC6717354 DOI: 10.1186/s12887-019-1687-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Pediatr ISSN: 1471-2431 Impact factor: 2.125
Patient characteristics
| Variable | Values |
|---|---|
| Total number (n) | 46 |
| Male/female (n) | 26/20 |
| Mean age (years) | 6.5 ± 2.3 (range, 4.2–12.0) |
| Mean weight (kg) | 22.1 ± 6.6 (range, 16.0–38.5) |
| PmVSD diameter (mm) | 4.1 ± 0.6 (range, 3.2–5.0) |
| Other malformations | |
| IRBBB (n) | 4 |
| Aortic valve regurgitation (trivial) (n) | 1 |
| Mitral valve regurgitation (n) | 0 |
| Tricuspid valve regurgitation (mild) (n) | 1 |
| Outcome as expected (n) | 44 |
| Switch to open heart surgery (n) | 2 |
| Device size (mm) | 6 mm,7 mm |
| Operative duration (min) | 28.2 ± 8.7 (range, 12.0–42.0) |
| Mechanical ventilation duration (min) | 65.2 ± 5.6 (range, 56.0–78.0) |
| Intensive care unit duration (h) | 2.1 ± 0.1 (range, 2.0–2.4) |
| Total length of stay (day) | 2.7 ± 0.2 (range, 2.5–3.0) |
| In-hospital complication | |
| IRBBB (n) | 3 |
| Residual shunt (n) | 1 (width, 1 mm; flow rate < 2.0 m/s) |
| Follow-up complication (Medium) | |
| IRBBB (n) | 1 |
| Follow-up complication (Long-term) | |
| IRBBB (n) | 0 |
| Follow-up time (months) | 21.8 ± 4.7 (range, 12–24) |
Values are presented as mean ± standard deviation
PmVSD perimembranous ventricular septal defect, IRBBB incomplete right bundle branch block
Fig. 1Double-disk S-pmVSO devices and Delivery systems. a Front view of an S-pmVSO; b lateral view of an S-pmVSO; c Delivery systems. S-pmVSO: symmetrical concentric PmVSD occluder
Fig. 2Delivery tract establishment and device deployment. A1&A2: The catheter was progressively withdrawn to reach the middle of the TV; B1&B2: The guidewire was delivered to the RV via the TV; C1&C2: The catheter was advanced into the right ventricular outflow tract; D1&D2: The tip of the catheter was entered into the LV under TEE guidance. E1&E2: Guidewire advanced through the defect and into the LV under TEE guidance. F1&F2: Sheath advanced to the LV tracked by TEE. G1&G2: Left disc of the S-pmVSO was deployed in the LV. H1&H2: Right side of the device was deployed by retracting the delivery sheath while applying slight tension on the cable. LV: left ventricle; LA: left atrium; RA: right atrium; RV: right ventricle; AO: aorta; VSD: ventricle septal defect; TV: tricuspid valve; PV: pulmonary artery valve; MV: mitral valve; PA: pulmonary artery; SVC: superior vena cava; IVC: inferior vena cava
Figure 3TEE (a and b) and TTE (c and d) were performed to ensure that there were no residual shunts or aortic regurgitation. LV: left ventricle; LA: left atrium; RA: right atrium; RV: right ventricle; AO: aorta; TV: tricuspid valve; MV: mitral valve; PA: pulmonary artery; SVC: superior vena cava; IVC: inferior vena cava