RESUMO
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES@#This study aimed to describe our early to mid-term experience with transcatheter atrial septal defect (ASD) closure using the Occlutech Figulla® Flex II device (FSO), Gore® Cardioform septal occluder (GSO), and Amplatzer® septal occluder (ASO) after they were first approved in Korea in 2014, and to compare the three aforementioned kinds of ASD closure devices.@*METHODS@#Between September 2014 and August 2016, 267 patients underwent transcatheter ASD closure in our institution. Baseline characteristics, hemodynamic features, comorbidities, and procedural success and complication rates were analyzed retrospectively. The unpaired Student t-test or variance analysis was used in the statistical analysis.@*RESULTS@#The FSO was most commonly used (n=152, 56.9%), followed by the ASO (n=98, 36.7%) and GSO (n=17, 6.4%). Baseline characteristics and hemodynamic features were similar between the devices, except that the defect size and pulmonary flow-to-systemic flow ratio were lower in the GSO group than in the other groups. Overall, the procedural success rate remained at 100%, and major complication rate was < 1%. No late complication occurred during the follow-up.@*CONCLUSIONS@#The FSO and GSO are feasible, safe options for use in transcatheter ASD closure, and they are comparable to the ASO.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to describe our early to mid-term experience with transcatheter atrial septal defect (ASD) closure using the Occlutech Figulla® Flex II device (FSO), Gore® Cardioform septal occluder (GSO), and Amplatzer® septal occluder (ASO) after they were first approved in Korea in 2014, and to compare the three aforementioned kinds of ASD closure devices. METHODS: Between September 2014 and August 2016, 267 patients underwent transcatheter ASD closure in our institution. Baseline characteristics, hemodynamic features, comorbidities, and procedural success and complication rates were analyzed retrospectively. The unpaired Student t-test or variance analysis was used in the statistical analysis. RESULTS: The FSO was most commonly used (n=152, 56.9%), followed by the ASO (n=98, 36.7%) and GSO (n=17, 6.4%). Baseline characteristics and hemodynamic features were similar between the devices, except that the defect size and pulmonary flow-to-systemic flow ratio were lower in the GSO group than in the other groups. Overall, the procedural success rate remained at 100%, and major complication rate was < 1%. No late complication occurred during the follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The FSO and GSO are feasible, safe options for use in transcatheter ASD closure, and they are comparable to the ASO.