Background: Device closure of multiple atrial septal defects (MASDs) is frequently done using a single centrally deployed septal or cribriform occluder, but multiple devices are needed for large defects separated more than 6 mm. There is a concern about complications while using multiple devices, especially in children. Methods: Patients who received multiple devices for closure of MASD were grouped according to their age and analyzed for procedural techniques, immediate and late complications. MASDs closed by a single device were not included. Balloon sizing was done when echocardiographic images were suboptimal before simultaneous device deployment through two venous accesses or sequential deployment through one access. Duration and number of antiplatelet drugs and residual flows were analyzed on follow-up. Results: Twenty-five patients received multiple devices. Balloon interrogation was performed in 16/18 adults but only in 2/7 children. Device size was 2-5 mm larger than echocardiographic defect size or equal to balloon waist. There were no procedural failures; 7/25 showed small postprocedural residual flows. Complications including embolization in one, arrhythmia in one, and cobra deformity in two were managed successfully. On a median follow-up of 5.5 years (1-12 years), residual flows disappeared in 4/7 and there were no major late complications. Conclusions: Use of multiple devices for closing MASD is feasible with good technical success. Echocardiography and balloon interrogation are the keys for success. Simultaneous deployment is often needed and sequential delivery is feasible rarely if the defects are far apart. Minor residual leaks are common but improve on follow-up. There are no significant new complications on long-term follow-up. Copyright:
Background: Device closure of multiple atrial septal defects (MASDs) is frequently done using a single centrally deployed septal or cribriform occluder, but multiple devices are needed for large defects separated more than 6 mm. There is a concern about complications while using multiple devices, especially in children. Methods: Patients who received multiple devices for closure of MASD were grouped according to their age and analyzed for procedural techniques, immediate and late complications. MASDs closed by a single device were not included. Balloon sizing was done when echocardiographic images were suboptimal before simultaneous device deployment through two venous accesses or sequential deployment through one access. Duration and number of antiplatelet drugs and residual flows were analyzed on follow-up. Results: Twenty-five patients received multiple devices. Balloon interrogation was performed in 16/18 adults but only in 2/7 children. Device size was 2-5 mm larger than echocardiographic defect size or equal to balloon waist. There were no procedural failures; 7/25 showed small postprocedural residual flows. Complications including embolization in one, arrhythmia in one, and cobra deformity in two were managed successfully. On a median follow-up of 5.5 years (1-12 years), residual flows disappeared in 4/7 and there were no major late complications. Conclusions: Use of multiple devices for closing MASD is feasible with good technical success. Echocardiography and balloon interrogation are the keys for success. Simultaneous deployment is often needed and sequential delivery is feasible rarely if the defects are far apart. Minor residual leaks are common but improve on follow-up. There are no significant new complications on long-term follow-up. Copyright:
Authors: P A Sadiq; Aniket Puri; Madhu Dixit; A Ghatak; Sudhanshu K Dwivedi; Varun S Narain; Ram K Saran; Vijay K Puri Journal: Indian Heart J Date: 2005 Nov-Dec