[A comparative study of Rashkind, Grifka and coil devices in percutaneous closing of patent ductus arteriosus].

J L Lázaro Castillo, J Munayer Calderón, T Aldana Pérez, R San Luis Miranda, G Maza Juárez, H Ramírez Reyes, L Arias Monroy, A Campos Gómez, A Amaya Hernández
{"title":"[A comparative study of Rashkind, Grifka and coil devices in percutaneous closing of patent ductus arteriosus].","authors":"J L Lázaro Castillo,&nbsp;J Munayer Calderón,&nbsp;T Aldana Pérez,&nbsp;R San Luis Miranda,&nbsp;G Maza Juárez,&nbsp;H Ramírez Reyes,&nbsp;L Arias Monroy,&nbsp;A Campos Gómez,&nbsp;A Amaya Hernández","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study was performed to evaluate the efficacy of transcatheter Coil and Grifka closure of the patent ductus arteriosus in comparison to our experience with the Rashkind umbrella device. Ninety seven patients (36 male and 61 females) underwent occlusion of the PDA. The following variables were compared: age, sex, ductus diameter, morphology, device, occlusion time, residual shunt, multiple device and complications. Data obtained were compared using the Student's test and Chi 2. Median patient age was 7.82 +/- 6.89, forty five patients underwent transcatheter Rashkind-17 closure, 19 patients with Rashkind-12, 18 patients with Coil and 13 patients with Grifka device, in two patients the closure could not be performed. There were differences between the morphology and device used (p = 0.008), between the ductus diameter and device used (p < 0.001). There was immediate closure in 26.7% in the Rashkind-17 group compared with, 57.9% for the Rashkind-12 group, 83.3% for Coil group and of 91.7% for Grifka group. The occlusion within 24 hrs of implantation was 60% with Rashkind-17, 78.9% with Rashkind-12, 94.4% with Coil and 100% with Grifka. Residual shunt persisted for more than a year in 7 patients with Rashkind-17 and 1 with Rashkind 12, (p = 0.001), in 4 patients two devices wore placed. The complications were, 15.5% for Rashkind-17, 26.3% for Rashkind-12, 5.2% for Coil and 30% for Grifka, (p = 0.004), one coil and one Grifka embolized. Transcatheter Coil and Grifka occlusion are more effective in achieving immediate closure than the Rashkind device. The indication to use each device is made according to the morphology and size of the ductus.</p>","PeriodicalId":75556,"journal":{"name":"Archivos del Instituto de Cardiologia de Mexico","volume":"70 2","pages":"167-72"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2000-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archivos del Instituto de Cardiologia de Mexico","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study was performed to evaluate the efficacy of transcatheter Coil and Grifka closure of the patent ductus arteriosus in comparison to our experience with the Rashkind umbrella device. Ninety seven patients (36 male and 61 females) underwent occlusion of the PDA. The following variables were compared: age, sex, ductus diameter, morphology, device, occlusion time, residual shunt, multiple device and complications. Data obtained were compared using the Student's test and Chi 2. Median patient age was 7.82 +/- 6.89, forty five patients underwent transcatheter Rashkind-17 closure, 19 patients with Rashkind-12, 18 patients with Coil and 13 patients with Grifka device, in two patients the closure could not be performed. There were differences between the morphology and device used (p = 0.008), between the ductus diameter and device used (p < 0.001). There was immediate closure in 26.7% in the Rashkind-17 group compared with, 57.9% for the Rashkind-12 group, 83.3% for Coil group and of 91.7% for Grifka group. The occlusion within 24 hrs of implantation was 60% with Rashkind-17, 78.9% with Rashkind-12, 94.4% with Coil and 100% with Grifka. Residual shunt persisted for more than a year in 7 patients with Rashkind-17 and 1 with Rashkind 12, (p = 0.001), in 4 patients two devices wore placed. The complications were, 15.5% for Rashkind-17, 26.3% for Rashkind-12, 5.2% for Coil and 30% for Grifka, (p = 0.004), one coil and one Grifka embolized. Transcatheter Coil and Grifka occlusion are more effective in achieving immediate closure than the Rashkind device. The indication to use each device is made according to the morphology and size of the ductus.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
[Rashkind、Grifka和线圈装置在经皮动脉导管未闭闭合中的比较研究]。
本研究旨在评估经导管线圈和Grifka闭合动脉导管未闭的疗效,并与我们使用Rashkind保护伞装置的经验进行比较。97例患者(男性36例,女性61例)行PDA闭塞术。比较以下变量:年龄、性别、导管直径、形态、器械、闭塞时间、残留分流器、多器械及并发症。使用Student's test和Chi 2对获得的数据进行比较。患者中位年龄为7.82±6.89岁,经导管Rashkind-17闭合45例,Rashkind-12闭合19例,Coil闭合18例,Grifka装置闭合13例,2例无法闭合。形态学和使用的器械之间存在差异(p = 0.008),导管直径和使用的器械之间存在差异(p < 0.001)。Rashkind-17组即刻关闭率为26.7%,而Rashkind-12组为57.9%,Coil组为83.3%,Grifka组为91.7%。Rashkind-17、Rashkind-12、Coil和Grifka的24 h内咬合率分别为60%、78.9%、94.4%和100%。7例使用Rashkind-17的患者和1例使用Rashkind- 12的患者残留分流持续超过一年(p = 0.001), 4例使用两个装置。并发症发生率:Rashkind-17组15.5%,Rashkind-12组26.3%,Coil组5.2%,Grifka组30% (p = 0.004), 1个Coil组和1个Grifka组栓塞。经导管线圈和Grifka闭塞比Rashkind装置更有效地实现立即关闭。根据导管的形态和大小指示使用每种装置。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
[Arteriovenous fistulas]. [The foundations of medical ethics]. [Influence of the pericardium in the pathophysiology of ventricular dysfunction in acute infarct of the right ventricle. Experimental study] . [Experience in 1,500 patients undergoing radiofrequency ablation in the treatment of tachycardias]. [Efficacy and safety of immediate-release niacin in patients with ischemic cardiopathy. Experience of the Instituto Nacional de Cardiología "Ignacio Chávez"].
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1