2014
DOI: 10.1002/ccd.25684
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Device therapy for atrial septal defects in a multicenter cohort: Acute outcomes and adverse events

Abstract: Although device closure of ASDs is associated with low morbidity and rare mortality, ongoing assessment of device safety profiles are warranted, and registries offer opportunities to facilitate the required surveillance.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3

Citation Types

9
60
2
1

Year Published

2015
2015
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 53 publications
(75 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
9
60
2
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Our successful ASD device implant rate of 96.7% was similar to procedural success rates of 95.7% in the IMPACT Registry, 96% in the MAGIC report, 95% in the C3PO report, and 95.7% in the Amplatzer Septal Occluder FDA study (2,29,37,38). Major adverse events were observed in 1.3% in our study.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 81%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Our successful ASD device implant rate of 96.7% was similar to procedural success rates of 95.7% in the IMPACT Registry, 96% in the MAGIC report, 95% in the C3PO report, and 95.7% in the Amplatzer Septal Occluder FDA study (2,29,37,38). Major adverse events were observed in 1.3% in our study.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 81%
“…Major adverse events were observed in 1.3% in our study. This rate compares with 1.2% in IMPACT patients, 1.1% in MAGIC patients, 4.7% in C3PO patients and 1.6% in the FDA study (2,29,37,38). As previously described, device embolization was successfully managed percutaneously in most cases (34).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 52%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…[1][2][3][4] However, erosion of the device through an atrial wall into the aorta or pericardial space (cardiac erosion) is a rare but serious adverse event that can occur early or late after ASD closure. [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] The absolute risk of erosion after ASO implant has been estimated to range from 0.043% to 0.3%. 2,6,8,[17][18][19] The specific mechanisms and risk factors for device erosion remain unclear, and are likely to be multifactorial.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, there may be anatomic, patient-related, and procedural variables that are associated with an increased risk of erosion relative to the general population of patients undergoing ASD closure (ie, relative risk). Although multiple case reports, reviews, and analyses of the Manufacturer And User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database have been published, [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] there are no studies that adequately speak to the question of relative or absolute erosion risk.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%