Comparison of venous approach and conventional approach in children undergoing percutaneous patent ductus arteriosus closure

IF 0.6 Q4 PEDIATRICS PROGRESS IN PEDIATRIC CARDIOLOGY Pub Date : 2023-09-01 DOI:10.1016/j.ppedcard.2023.101660
Shilpa Aryal, Manish Shrestha, Poonam Sharma, Subash Chandra Shah, Amshu Shakya, Kul Ratna Thapa, Vidhata K.C. Bhandari, Urmila Shakya
{"title":"Comparison of venous approach and conventional approach in children undergoing percutaneous patent ductus arteriosus closure","authors":"Shilpa Aryal,&nbsp;Manish Shrestha,&nbsp;Poonam Sharma,&nbsp;Subash Chandra Shah,&nbsp;Amshu Shakya,&nbsp;Kul Ratna Thapa,&nbsp;Vidhata K.C. Bhandari,&nbsp;Urmila Shakya","doi":"10.1016/j.ppedcard.2023.101660","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>The standard method for the closure of PDA is the conventional method, where both arterial and venous access are obtained. Patent ductus arteriosus can be closed successfully via venous-only approach.</p></div><div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>To compare the outcomes of the venous approach and combined arterial and venous approach (conventional approach) among children undergoing percutaneous patent ductus arteriosus device closure at Sahid Gangalal National heart center, Kathmandu, Nepal.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A total of 248 children &lt;15 years of age with a diagnosis of PDA were included in this retrospective observational study. Echocardiography was used for the selection of patients. We compared the venous approach and combined arterial and venous approach (conventional approach) of PDA device closure in these patients.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>A total of 248 children with age groups of 6 months to 14 years were enrolled during the study period. The venous-only approach (group B) was used in 96 patients, and the conventional approach (group A) was used in 152 patients. Baseline characteristics, clinical characteristics, and clinical outcomes in terms of success rate, complications, procedure time, fluoroscopic time, and contrast used were compared between the two groups.</p><p>The rate of successful closure in group A and group B patient groups were 96.7 % and 100 %, respectively. The mean procedure time was significantly lesser in group B as compared to group A (25 ± 6.6 min in group B vs. 52 ± 10.4 min in group B, <em>p</em><span> value ≤ 0.001). The mean fluoroscopy time was also significantly lesser in group B as compared to group A (5 min ± 1.728 in group B vs. 6.5 min ± 2.3 in group A, </span><em>p</em>-value &lt;0.001). Similarly, the total amount of contrast used was also significantly lesser in group B as compared to group A (24.2 ml ± 11.8 in group B vs. 30ml ± 14.45, <em>p</em> value = 0.001). The complication rate was 11.2 % (<em>n</em> = 17) in group A vs 11 % (<em>n</em> = 11) in group B patient groups.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The venous-only approach can be used as a method of closing PDA as it has lesser procedure time, fluoroscopic time, and lesser amount of contrast used. However, proper patient selection is important prior to performing device closure.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46028,"journal":{"name":"PROGRESS IN PEDIATRIC CARDIOLOGY","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PROGRESS IN PEDIATRIC CARDIOLOGY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1058981323000486","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

The standard method for the closure of PDA is the conventional method, where both arterial and venous access are obtained. Patent ductus arteriosus can be closed successfully via venous-only approach.

Objectives

To compare the outcomes of the venous approach and combined arterial and venous approach (conventional approach) among children undergoing percutaneous patent ductus arteriosus device closure at Sahid Gangalal National heart center, Kathmandu, Nepal.

Methods

A total of 248 children <15 years of age with a diagnosis of PDA were included in this retrospective observational study. Echocardiography was used for the selection of patients. We compared the venous approach and combined arterial and venous approach (conventional approach) of PDA device closure in these patients.

Results

A total of 248 children with age groups of 6 months to 14 years were enrolled during the study period. The venous-only approach (group B) was used in 96 patients, and the conventional approach (group A) was used in 152 patients. Baseline characteristics, clinical characteristics, and clinical outcomes in terms of success rate, complications, procedure time, fluoroscopic time, and contrast used were compared between the two groups.

The rate of successful closure in group A and group B patient groups were 96.7 % and 100 %, respectively. The mean procedure time was significantly lesser in group B as compared to group A (25 ± 6.6 min in group B vs. 52 ± 10.4 min in group B, p value ≤ 0.001). The mean fluoroscopy time was also significantly lesser in group B as compared to group A (5 min ± 1.728 in group B vs. 6.5 min ± 2.3 in group A, p-value <0.001). Similarly, the total amount of contrast used was also significantly lesser in group B as compared to group A (24.2 ml ± 11.8 in group B vs. 30ml ± 14.45, p value = 0.001). The complication rate was 11.2 % (n = 17) in group A vs 11 % (n = 11) in group B patient groups.

Conclusion

The venous-only approach can be used as a method of closing PDA as it has lesser procedure time, fluoroscopic time, and lesser amount of contrast used. However, proper patient selection is important prior to performing device closure.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
静脉入路与常规入路在儿童经皮动脉导管未闭术中的比较
背景:PDA闭合的标准方法是常规方法,其中动脉和静脉通道都获得。动脉导管未闭可通过单静脉入路成功关闭。目的比较在尼泊尔加德满都的Sahid Gangalal国家心脏中心接受经皮动脉导管未闭装置闭合的儿童采用静脉入路和动静脉联合入路(常规入路)的效果。方法回顾性观察研究248例15岁诊断为PDA的儿童。超声心动图用于患者的选择。我们比较了静脉入路和动静脉联合入路(传统入路)对这些患者PDA装置闭合的影响。结果研究期间共纳入248名6个月~ 14岁儿童。单纯静脉入路(B组)96例,常规入路(A组)152例。比较两组患者的基线特征、临床特征和临床结果,包括成功率、并发症、手术时间、透视时间和使用的对比剂。A组和B组患者的结扎成功率分别为96.7%和100%。B组的平均手术时间明显少于A组(B组为25±6.6 min, B组为52±10.4 min, p值≤0.001)。B组的平均透视时间也明显少于A组(B组为5分钟±1.728分钟,A组为6.5分钟±2.3分钟,p值<0.001)。同样,B组使用的对比剂总量也明显少于A组(B组24.2 ml±11.8 vs 30ml±14.45,p值= 0.001)。A组患者并发症发生率为11.2% (n = 17), B组患者并发症发生率为11% (n = 11)。结论单纯静脉入路具有手术时间短、透视时间短、造影剂用量少等优点,可作为关闭PDA的一种方法。然而,在进行器械关闭之前,正确的患者选择是很重要的。
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
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
11.10%
发文量
69
审稿时长
75 days
期刊介绍: Progress in Pediatric Cardiology is an international journal of review presenting information and experienced opinion of importance in the understanding and management of cardiovascular diseases in children. Each issue is prepared by one or more Guest Editors and reviews a single subject, allowing for comprehensive presentations of complex, multifaceted or rapidly changing topics of clinical and investigative interest.
期刊最新文献
It is a fine line with flecainide: A case of flecainide toxicity in a pediatric patient Clinical insights: Resolving the specter of cardiac sequelae in multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) – A 24-month follow-up case series Decreased ventricular repolarization variability in one-year-olds of gestational diabetes mothers Guideline-directed medical therapy for dilated cardiomyopathy in the era of pediatric ventricular assist devices: Improving transplant-free survival Health related quality of life in children following Fontan surgery: A Malaysian perspective
×
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