scholarly journals THE INFLUENCE OF DEFICIENT RETRO-AORTIC RIM ON TECHNICAL SUCCESS AND EARLY ADVERSE EVENTS FOLLOWING DEVICE CLOSURE OF SECUNDUM ATRIAL SEPTAL DEFECTS: AN ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACT® REGISTRY

2015 ◽  
Vol 65 (10) ◽  
pp. A503 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael L. O’Byrne ◽  
Matthew Gillespie ◽  
Yoav Dori ◽  
Kevin Kennedy ◽  
Jonathan Rome ◽  
...  
2016 ◽  
Vol 89 (1) ◽  
pp. 102-111 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael L. O'Byrne ◽  
Matthew J. Gillespie ◽  
Kevin F. Kennedy ◽  
Yoav Dori ◽  
Jonathan J. Rome ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 27 (6) ◽  
pp. 1153-1161 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bryan Mitchelson ◽  
Clare O’Donnell ◽  
Peter Ruygrok ◽  
John Wright ◽  
John Stirling ◽  
...  

AbstractBackgroundTranscatheter device closure has become the established standard of care for suitable atrial septal defects. Device erosion has been a recent focus and has prompted changes in the Instructions for Users documentation released by device companies. We reviewed our entire local experience with atrial septal defect device closure, focussing on the evolution of this procedure in our centre and particularly on complications.MethodsWe carried out a retrospective review of 581 consecutive patients undergoing attempted transcatheter device closure of an atrial septal defect in Auckland from December 1997 to June 2014. We reviewed all complications recorded and compared our outcomes with the current literature. We sought to understand the impact of the evolution in recommendations and clinical practice on patient outcomes in our programme.ResultsThere were a total of 24 complications (4.1%), including 10 device embolisations (1.7%), nine arrhythmias (1.5%), two significant vascular access-related complications (0.3%), one device erosion (0.2%), one malposed device (0.2%), and one probable wire perforation of the left atrial appendage (0.2%). There was one mortality related to device embolisation. All device embolisations occurred following the change in Instructions for Users after publication of the first device erosion report in 2004. This increase in embolisation rate was statistically significant (p-value 0.015).ConclusionsIn our series, the incidence of device embolisation was higher than that anticipated, with a significant increase following changes to the Instructions for Users. This highlights the need for ongoing data collection on complication incidence and for ongoing review of the impact of changes in clinical practice on complication rates.


2014 ◽  
Vol 35 (7) ◽  
pp. 1181-1190 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael L. O’Byrne ◽  
Andrew C. Glatz ◽  
Sherzana Sunderji ◽  
Aswathi E. Mathew ◽  
David J. Goldberg ◽  
...  

2012 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 132-137
Author(s):  
Hassan Javadzadegan ◽  
Mehrnoush Toufan ◽  
Ali Reza Sadighi ◽  
Joyce M. Chang ◽  
Nader D. Nader

AbstractBoth surgical and percutaneous closures of atrial septal defects have been successful in reversal of atrial dilatation. We compared the effects of surgical and percutaneous transvenous device closure of atrial septal defect on post-operative changes of P-wave duration, PR segment, and PR interval. Electrocardiographic data were prospectively collected from 30 patients following either surgical (n equal to 16) or percutaneous (n equal to 16) repair of atrial septal defects between 2004 and 2010. A cardiologist blinded to the closure technique performed the electrocardiographic analyses. P-wave duration (98.5 plus or minus 15.4 to 86.4 plus or minus 13.2 milliseconds, p-value less than 0.05) and PR interval (162.9 plus or minus 18.5 to 140.6 plus or minus 15.2 milliseconds, p-value less than 0.05) were reduced after percutaneous transvenous device closure. P-wave duration (104.5 plus or minus 24.7 versus 83.2 plus or minus 13.3 milliseconds, p-value less than 0.05) and PR interval (173.2 plus or minus 38.7 versus 144.3 plus or minus 32.0 milliseconds, p-value less than 0.05) were also reduced after surgical closure. PR segment in the percutaneous group was significantly reduced (63.4 plus or minus 14.5 to 52.1 plus or minus 10.8 milliseconds, p-value less than 0.05), but not in the surgical group (68.6 plus or minus 18.7 versus 61.1 plus or minus 24.7 milliseconds). However, the difference in PR segment changes between the two groups was not significant (−11.3 plus or minus 15.0 versus −7.6 plus or minus 20.5 milliseconds, p-value equal to 0.18). Our analysis demonstrates that the changes between the two groups were not different and that both closure techniques reduce P-wave duration, PR segment, and PR interval within 6 months.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document