Long‐Term Contrast Echocardiography and Clinical Follow‐Up after Percutaneous Closure of Patent Foramen Ovale Using Two Different Atrial Septal Occluder Devices

Scalise, Filippo; Auguadro, Carla; Sorropago, Giovanni; Sorropago, Antonio; Novelli, Eugenio; Finizio, Marica; Specchia, Giuśeppe

doi:10.1111/joic.12314

Cited by 7 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…PFO closure carries few drawbacks. One is the persistence of shunt on follow-up control with the potential risk for recurrent thromboembolic events [9]. In the present study, a residual shunt was observed in 16% of patients at one month, which is very similar to other publications [4,10,11].…”

Section: Pfo Closure Drawbackssupporting

confidence: 91%

“…Longer monitoring ideally for at least 72 H should be recommended. The incidence of AF/Flutter, 4.6% in our population, has been reported between 0.4-6.6% [1][2][3][4]6,7,9,[11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18]. Trabattoni has mentioned more supraventricular arrhythmias with Amplatzer versus Figulla but difference was not significant concerning paroxysmal AF [16], as similarly noted in the present study.…”

Section: Pfo Closure Drawbackssupporting

confidence: 75%

“…* Five of them had no shunt at the 6-month control, and another one did not come to the further control echocardiography; ** Five of them had not shunt at the 6-month control, another 3 had no shunt at the one-year control, and finally one had a persistent shunt at the one-year and half control; *** This patient had no shunt at the 6-month control. Another matter of concern is transient myocardial ischemia during device placement, also reported by others [1,9]. Most of them were not associated with any hemodynamical compromise and lasted few seconds.…”

Section: Pfo Closure Drawbacksmentioning

confidence: 69%

“…Both occluders achieved good results in terms of procedural success with a low rate of complication and a high rate of full occlusion. In fact, no inferiority of Occlutech devices compared to the Amplatzer devices could be established, as already noted [5,9,13,16]. Both devices are effective and safe for transcatheter PFO occlusion.…”

Section: Comparison Between Amplatzer and Occlutech Pfo Devicesmentioning

confidence: 83%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Day-Case Patent Foramen Ovale Closure Under Transthoracic Echocardiography and Fluoroscopic Guidance: A Safe and Cost-Effective Approach as Compared to Conventional Hospitalization

Godart¹,

Baudelet²,

Chatillon-Domanski³

et al. 2021

austinjclincardiolog

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Transcatheter Patent Foramen Ovale (PFO) is recommended as a therapy in secondary prevention of cryptogenic stroke. The aim of this study was to report one-year French single-center experience in PFO closure under sole Transthoracic Echocardiography (TTE) and fluoroscopy guidance performed as a day-case procedure versus a 3-day hospitalization. Methods: In 2018, all consecutive patients undergoing PFO closure for stroke were retrospectively included: 108 patients as a day-case procedure (group 1) versus 20 patients performed under a 3-day hospitalization (group 2). A comparison was performed between Occlutech and Amplatzer PFO devices and the impact on hospitalization costs was studied. Results: Occluders included Occlutech (n=81), Amplatzer (n=43), Lifetech (n=2) and PFM (n=2) PFO devices. Implantation succeeded in all. In-group 1, hospital discharge was delayed in only 3 cases. At one-month, 5 patients had Atrial Fibrillation (AF) and 91 patients (84%) had no residual shunt. In-group 2, hospital discharge was delayed in 4 patients. At one month, 1 patient had AF and no shunt was observed in 80%. In the comparative study, no significant statistical difference could be observed between Amplatzer and Occlutech devices. The one-day strategy leaded to a positive balance of 1825 euros per procedure in 2018, with a difference of 3785 euros with group 2. Conclusion: Our experience suggests that day-case PFO closure under fluoroscopy and TTE guidance is safe and effective in the majority of patients leading to a cost reduction and no increased risk of embolization.

show abstract

Section: Pfo Closure Drawbackssupporting

confidence: 91%

Section: Pfo Closure Drawbackssupporting

confidence: 75%

Section: Pfo Closure Drawbacksmentioning

confidence: 69%

Section: Comparison Between Amplatzer and Occlutech Pfo Devicesmentioning

confidence: 83%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Day-Case Patent Foramen Ovale Closure Under Transthoracic Echocardiography and Fluoroscopic Guidance: A Safe and Cost-Effective Approach as Compared to Conventional Hospitalization

Godart¹,

Baudelet²,

Chatillon-Domanski³

et al. 2021

austinjclincardiolog

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To validate cohort and case-control studies, the New Ottawa Scale [6] was applied. Six studies were considered of high quality (1 study 8 out 9 points [12]; 5 studies 9 out 9 points [13][14][15][16][17]). We considered the three studies conducted without a control group [18][19][20], with quality acceptable to the study design.…”

Section: Second Systematic Review: Apomentioning

confidence: 99%

Suture-Mediated Patent Foramen Ovale Closure Using the NobleStitch EL: Results from a Hospital-Based HTA

Gaetti

Beneduce

Fauci

et al. 2022

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

(1) Background: Patent foramen ovale (PFO) is a congenital abnormality present in up to 25% of the general population, and it is a relevant cause of cryptogenic stroke. We applied the hospital-based HTA model (AdHopHTA) to conduct a multidimensional assessment of NobleStitch EL, an innovative suture-mediated PFO closure device. We compared it to Amplatzer PFO Occluder (APO) to provide evidence to inform technologies’ governance in hospital settings. (2) Methods: For each AdHopHTA dimension we: systematically retrieved available evidence from the literature applying the PRISMA guidelines and then analyzed original clinical and cost data of a NobleStitch EL device at San Raffaele research hospital in Milan (Italy). The economic dimension was analyzed through activity-based costing and a cost analysis. We conducted semi-structured interviews with selected healthcare professionals to explore the organizational, legal, social, and ethical impact. (3) Results: A single study was included for the NobleStitch EL, with 10 for APO. Both literature data and original data showed comparable safety. Efficacy data analysis found that the PFO closure was at 89% for NobleStitch EL vs. 89–97% for APO. APO has a better impact on the budget and minor process costs. Consulted experts reported that the organizational impact of NobleStitch EL in the short and the long run as null, albeit a better impact under the social and the ethical aspects. (4) Conclusion: We suggest that there is inadequate evidence to conclude the relative efficacy of NobleStitch EL as compared to APO. Nevertheless, this report shows a good safety profile and higher costs for NobleStitch EL, with no organizational or legal impact. Further studies in selected population are recommended.

show abstract

Endothelialization and Inflammatory Reactions After Intracardiac Device Implantation

Edlinger

Paar

Kheder

et al. 2022

Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Long‐Term Contrast Echocardiography and Clinical Follow‐Up after Percutaneous Closure of Patent Foramen Ovale Using Two Different Atrial Septal Occluder Devices

Cited by 7 publications

References 44 publications

Day-Case Patent Foramen Ovale Closure Under Transthoracic Echocardiography and Fluoroscopic Guidance: A Safe and Cost-Effective Approach as Compared to Conventional Hospitalization

Day-Case Patent Foramen Ovale Closure Under Transthoracic Echocardiography and Fluoroscopic Guidance: A Safe and Cost-Effective Approach as Compared to Conventional Hospitalization

Suture-Mediated Patent Foramen Ovale Closure Using the NobleStitch EL: Results from a Hospital-Based HTA

Endothelialization and Inflammatory Reactions After Intracardiac Device Implantation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About