OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to investigate the long-term outcomes of perventricular device occlusion and surgical repair for doubly committed subarterial ventricular septal defect using propensity score matched analysis because previous comparative studies were limited by differences in the baseline characteristics. METHODS: We reviewed inpatients with isolated doubly committed subarterial ventricular septal defect aged <18 years who underwent surgical repair or device occlusion between January 2011 and December 2017. Propensity score matching was used to assemble a cohort of patients with similar baseline characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 336 patients underwent surgical repair; 99 underwent device occlusion. After matching, the repair group included 164 patients, whereas the device group had 91 patients. There were no significant differences in the baseline characteristics. The median follow-up periods were 46 and 58 months for the device and repair groups, respectively. No significant difference was noted in the rates of cumulative adverse events in the 2 groups (7.9% vs 5.5%; P = 0.61). The repair group required longer periods of hospitalization (P = 0.002) and mechanical ventilation (P = 0.016). No grade 3 or higher valvular regurgitation or high-degree atrioventricular block events were observed. All patients were in sinus rhythm at the last follow-up examination. CONCLUSIONS: In selected patients with doubly committed subarterial ventricular septal defect, compared with conventional repair, perventricular device occlusion has comparable efficacy and safety, less invasiveness in terms of time in the hospital and on mechanical ventilation and avoidance of cardiopulmonary bypass.
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to investigate the long-term outcomes of perventricular device occlusion and surgical repair for doubly committed subarterial ventricular septal defect using propensity score matched analysis because previous comparative studies were limited by differences in the baseline characteristics. METHODS: We reviewed inpatients with isolated doubly committed subarterial ventricular septal defect aged <18 years who underwent surgical repair or device occlusion between January 2011 and December 2017. Propensity score matching was used to assemble a cohort of patients with similar baseline characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 336 patients underwent surgical repair; 99 underwent device occlusion. After matching, the repair group included 164 patients, whereas the device group had 91 patients. There were no significant differences in the baseline characteristics. The median follow-up periods were 46 and 58 months for the device and repair groups, respectively. No significant difference was noted in the rates of cumulative adverse events in the 2 groups (7.9% vs 5.5%; P = 0.61). The repair group required longer periods of hospitalization (P = 0.002) and mechanical ventilation (P = 0.016). No grade 3 or higher valvular regurgitation or high-degree atrioventricular block events were observed. All patients were in sinus rhythm at the last follow-up examination. CONCLUSIONS: In selected patients with doubly committed subarterial ventricular septal defect, compared with conventional repair, perventricular device occlusion has comparable efficacy and safety, less invasiveness in terms of time in the hospital and on mechanical ventilation and avoidance of cardiopulmonary bypass.