Aortic Wall Erosion after Percutaneous Closure of Atrial Septal Defect

López‐Fernández, Teresa; Diego, José Juan Gómez de; Monedero, María Carmen; Alonso, D. Cabestrero; Mesa, José Marı́a; Moreno, Isidro; Yangüela, Mar Moreno; de, Esteban; López-Sendoón, José Luis

doi:10.1016/j.echo.2010.06.016

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Erosion events associated with the ASO device have occurred at the roof of the right or left atrium or at the atrial junction with the aorta, causing hemopericardium, tamponade or aortic fistula [3–26]. The reasons for erosion are unknown, but several risk factors have been proposed, all of which increase the chance of contact between the device and the atrial wall: absent or deficient superior–anterior rim [4, 6, 9, 16, 17, 20–22, 24–26], device‐sizing (over‐sizing [6, 13, 20, 22, 24, 25] vs. under‐sizing [9]), both of which predispose toward contact of the device with the aortic root [3, 6, 9, 25]; and/or device‐straddling of the aorta (presence [4, 18] versus absence [10]). Early risk factors have also been proposed such as deformation of the device at the aortic root at 24 h and early pericardial effusion [24].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Percutaneous atrial Septal Occluder devices and cardiac erosion: A review of the literature

Crawford

Brindis

Krucoff

et al. 2012

Cathet Cardio Intervent

124

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cardiac erosion is a rare but serious complication of the ASO device. Erosion events are most often ascribed to device over-sizing or deficient retro-aortic rims; however, both consensus and evidence for a cogent risk factor(s) is lacking. Further assessment of the root cause of erosion and true incidence of this complication is required; analyses using control patients and/or device registry establishment represent logical next steps.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Percutaneous atrial Septal Occluder devices and cardiac erosion: A review of the literature

Crawford

Brindis

Krucoff

et al. 2012

Cathet Cardio Intervent

124

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nonetheless, it is the most frequent adverse event resulting in mortality. 3 Clinical presentation ranges widely from asymptomatic patients 4 over hemolytic anemia 5 to cardiogenic shock due to pericardial tamponade. 6 Retrosternal pain, as in our case, is found frequently, both as an early symptom as well as late as 4 years postinterventional.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Minimal Invasive Retrieval of Dislodged Amplatzer Occluder with Subsequent Impediments

Born

Eckstein²,

Buser³

et al. 2012

Thorac cardiovasc Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A 47-year-old female underwent interventional patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure with an Amplatzer septal occluder (AGA Medical Corporation, USA). After 48 hours of implantation, she experienced intermittent pulse synchronous retrosternal pain. Subsequently, device-associated compression of the aortic root was diagnosed. Occluder retrieval and surgical PFO-closure was accomplished successfully via minimal invasive, video-assisted anterolateral thoracotomy.

show abstract

Atrial septum defect closure device in a beating heart, from the perspective of a researcher in artificial organs

Tomizawa

2012

J Artif Organs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Transcatheter closure of atrial septum defect (ASD) with a closure device is increasing, but the history of clinical use of this procedure is still short, and the efficacy and long-term safety remain unproved. The total number of closure devices implanted throughout the world has not been counted accurately. Therefore, the probability of complications occurring after implantation is uncertain. Device-related complications that occur suddenly late after implantation are life-threatening, and quite often necessitate emergency surgical intervention. In Japanese medical journals, authors reporting closure devices have mentioned no complications and problems in their facilities. Detailed studies of device-related complications and device removal have not been reported in Japan. In fact, this literature search found an unexpectedly large number of reports of various adverse events from many overseas countries. When follow-up duration is short and the number of patients is small, the incidence of complications cannot be determined. Rare complications may emerge in a large series with a long observation period. Consequently, the actual number of incidents related to ASD closure devices is possibly several times higher than the number reported. Guidelines for long-term patient management for patients with an implanted closure device are necessary and post-marketing surveillance is appropriate. Development of a national database, a worldwide registration system, and continuous information disclosure will improve the quality of treatment. The devices currently available are not ideal in view of reports of late complications requiring urgent surgery and the need for life-long follow-up. An ideal device should be free from complications during life, and reliability is indispensable.

show abstract

Aortic Wall Erosion after Percutaneous Closure of Atrial Septal Defect

Cited by 4 publications

References 3 publications

Percutaneous atrial Septal Occluder devices and cardiac erosion: A review of the literature

Percutaneous atrial Septal Occluder devices and cardiac erosion: A review of the literature

Minimal Invasive Retrieval of Dislodged Amplatzer Occluder with Subsequent Impediments

Atrial septum defect closure device in a beating heart, from the perspective of a researcher in artificial organs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About