Limits...
Peratrial Device Closure of Atrial Septal Defect UnderTransesophageal Echocardiographic Guidance without Fluoroscopy Compared to Conventional On-Pump Surgical Closure

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

ABSTRACT

Objective: This study is designed to evaluate the advantages between peratrial deviceclosure under transesophageal echocardiographic guidance and open heartsurgery in atrial septal defect.

Methods: From November 2011 to September 2014, 28 patients with atrial septal defectwere treated. Fourteen patients received peratrial device closure undertransesophageal echocardiographic guidance (TEE group) and 14 patientsreceived cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB group). Clinical parameters duringintraoperative and postoperative periods were examined.

Results: All patients recovered after surgery without serious complications. Comparedwith that in CPB group, clinical observations in TEE group showedsignificant decreases in the operation time (193.6±35.5vs. 77.4±22.7 min, P<0.05),periods in intensive care unit (31.6±23.3 vs.17.5±8.1 hours, P<0.05), fluid volume afteroperation (502.5±439.3 vs. 32.5±7.3 ml,P<0.05), postoperative length of hospital stay(8.9±2.8 vs. 6.8±2.4 days,P<0.05) and total hospitalization cost(7205.9±1617.6 vs. 5882.3±441.2 $,P<0.05).

Conclusion: The peratrial device closure of atrial septal defect under transesophagealechocardiographic guidance is a mini-invasive, simple, safe and effectiveintervention. Its use in the clinical practice should be encouraged.

No MeSH data available.


Time for chest opening (A), time for chest closing (B), time foroperation (C), time for ICU stay (D) and time for hospitalization(E).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC5382899&req=5

f3: Time for chest opening (A), time for chest closing (B), time foroperation (C), time for ICU stay (D) and time for hospitalization(E).

Mentions: The defect closure or repair in both groups was successfully completed, and allpatients recovered after operation without severe complications. Compared with CPBgroup, TEE group showed significant decreases in time for chest opening (Figure 3A), chest closing (Figure 3B), time for operation (Figure 3C), intensive care unit (ICU) stay (Figure 3D), length of stay (Figure3E), volume of drainage (Figure 4A),length of incision (Figure 4B), cost of bloodinfusion (Figure 4C) and full cost (Figure 2D). Six point sixty seven percent ofpatients in TEE group and 53.33% in CPB group had a small amount of pleural effusionafter surgery. Six point sixty seven percent of patients in TEE group and 86.67% inCPB group got perioperative infusion of blood products. There were no seriouscomplications, no second chest opening to stop bleeding and no pericardial effusionduring the period of hospitalization in the two groups. During the 12 to 24 monthsof the routine follow-up, no death, no residual shunt and no serious arrhythmia werefound.


Peratrial Device Closure of Atrial Septal Defect UnderTransesophageal Echocardiographic Guidance without Fluoroscopy Compared to Conventional On-Pump Surgical Closure
Time for chest opening (A), time for chest closing (B), time foroperation (C), time for ICU stay (D) and time for hospitalization(E).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC5382899&req=5

f3: Time for chest opening (A), time for chest closing (B), time foroperation (C), time for ICU stay (D) and time for hospitalization(E).
Mentions: The defect closure or repair in both groups was successfully completed, and allpatients recovered after operation without severe complications. Compared with CPBgroup, TEE group showed significant decreases in time for chest opening (Figure 3A), chest closing (Figure 3B), time for operation (Figure 3C), intensive care unit (ICU) stay (Figure 3D), length of stay (Figure3E), volume of drainage (Figure 4A),length of incision (Figure 4B), cost of bloodinfusion (Figure 4C) and full cost (Figure 2D). Six point sixty seven percent ofpatients in TEE group and 53.33% in CPB group had a small amount of pleural effusionafter surgery. Six point sixty seven percent of patients in TEE group and 86.67% inCPB group got perioperative infusion of blood products. There were no seriouscomplications, no second chest opening to stop bleeding and no pericardial effusionduring the period of hospitalization in the two groups. During the 12 to 24 monthsof the routine follow-up, no death, no residual shunt and no serious arrhythmia werefound.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

ABSTRACT

Objective: This study is designed to evaluate the advantages between peratrial deviceclosure under transesophageal echocardiographic guidance and open heartsurgery in atrial septal defect.

Methods: From November 2011 to September 2014, 28 patients with atrial septal defectwere treated. Fourteen patients received peratrial device closure undertransesophageal echocardiographic guidance (TEE group) and 14 patientsreceived cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB group). Clinical parameters duringintraoperative and postoperative periods were examined.

Results: All patients recovered after surgery without serious complications. Comparedwith that in CPB group, clinical observations in TEE group showedsignificant decreases in the operation time (193.6±35.5vs. 77.4±22.7 min, P<0.05),periods in intensive care unit (31.6±23.3 vs.17.5±8.1 hours, P<0.05), fluid volume afteroperation (502.5±439.3 vs. 32.5±7.3 ml,P<0.05), postoperative length of hospital stay(8.9±2.8 vs. 6.8±2.4 days,P<0.05) and total hospitalization cost(7205.9±1617.6 vs. 5882.3±441.2 $,P<0.05).

Conclusion: The peratrial device closure of atrial septal defect under transesophagealechocardiographic guidance is a mini-invasive, simple, safe and effectiveintervention. Its use in the clinical practice should be encouraged.

No MeSH data available.