Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T07:40:19.743Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Transcatheter device closure of patent ductus arteriosus by exclusive venous access under echocardiographic guidance without angiography

Part of: Interventional Cardiology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 April 2021

Salem Deraz Open the ORCID record for Salem Deraz [Opens in a new window] ,
Mohamed Tawfik ,
Susy Kotit  and
Abdelrahman Elafifi
Salem Deraz*
Affiliation:
Aswan Heart Centre, Aswan, Egypt Faculty of Medicine, Menoufia University, Shebin El-Koum, Egypt
Mohamed Tawfik
Affiliation:
Aswan Heart Centre, Aswan, Egypt Faculty of Medicine, Menoufia University, Shebin El-Koum, Egypt Faculty of Medicine, Suez Canal University, Ismailia, Egypt
Susy Kotit
Affiliation:
Aswan Heart Centre, Aswan, Egypt
Abdelrahman Elafifi
Affiliation:
Aswan Heart Centre, Aswan, Egypt
*
Author for correspondence: Salem Elsayed Deraz. E-mail: [email protected], Mobile: +201001061905.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Introduction:

The standard transcatheter technique to profile the patent ductus arteriosus requires arterial access through the femoral artery and is associated with arterial complications, longer fluoroscopic time, contrast volume, and longer hospital stay.

Aim of the study:

To compare exclusive transvenous access with the standard procedures for patent ductus arteriosus closure and evaluate whether exclusive venous approach is a safe and effective alternative.

Methods:

A total of 320 patients were included. A detailed echocardiographic evaluation of the duct morphology was performed. Patients were classified into group 1 included patients who underwent exclusive femoral venous access, without any injections of contrast media and group 2 included patients who underwent arterial and venous access.

Results:

Arterial access was achieved in 210 (65.6%). Successful closure of patent ductus arteriosus was achieved in 109 (99.1%) patients in group 1 and in 203 (96.7%) patients in group 2. The patent ductus arteriosus was large and was referred for surgical closure in one patient from group 1 and 7 patients from group 2. Residual patent ductus arteriosus was seen in 6 cases from group 1 (5.4%) and 12 patients from group 2 (5.7%). None of the cases in group 1 had vascular complications, while vascular complications were seen in 20 cases, all of them in group 2 (9.5%). Nonvascular complications were seen in one patient from group 1 (0.9%) and 15 patients in group 2 (7.1%). The procedure time and fluoroscopy times were less in patients with exclusive transvenous access.

Conclusion:

Patent ductus arteriosus device closure without arterial access can be accomplished safely and effectively.

Keywords

Trans-catheterpatent ductus arteriosusechocardiography
Type
Original Article
Information
Cardiology in the Young , Volume 32 , Issue 1 , January 2022 , pp. 55 - 59
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Schneider, DJ, Moore, JW Patent ductus arteriosus. Circulation 2006; 114: 1873–1882.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Porstmann, W, Wierny, L, Warnke, H, Gerstberger, G, Romaniuk, PA Catheter closure of patent ductus arteriosus. 62 cases treated without thoracotomy. Radiol Clin N Am 1971; 9: 203–218.Google ScholarPubMed
Kulkarni, S, Naidu, R Vascular ultrasound imaging to study immediate postcatheterization vascular complications in children. Cathet Cardiovasc Intervent 2006; 68: 450–455.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vitiello, R, McCrindle, BW, Nykanen, D, Freedom, RM, Benson, LN Complications associated with pediatric cardiac catheterization. J Am Coll Cardiol 1998; 32: 1433–1440.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Uppal, L, Rohit, MK, Barwad, P, et al. Comparison of isolated venous approach with the standard approach in children undergoing patent ductus arteriosus device closure. Egypt Heart J 2020; 72: 65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Laville, M, Juillard, L. Contrast-induced acute kidney injury: how should at-risk patients be identified and managed? J Nephrol 2010; 23: 387–398.Google Scholar
Pasternak, JJ, Williamson, EE. Clinical pharmacology, uses, and adverse reactions of iodinated contrast agents: a primer for the non-radiologist. Mayo Clin Proc 2012; 87: 390–402.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hildebrandt, N, Schneider, C, Schweigl, T, Schneider, M. Long-term follow-up after transvenous single coil embolization of patent ductus arteriosus in dogs. J Vet Intern Med 2010; 24: 1400–1406.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Henrich, E, Hildebrandt, N, Schneider, C, Hassdenteufel, E, Schneider, M. Tansvenous coil embolization of patent ductus arteriosus in small (<3.0 kg) dogs. J Vet Intern Med 2011; 25: 65–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grabitz, RG, Schrader, R, Sigler, M, et al. Retrievable patent ductus arteriosus plug for interventional, transvenous occlusion of the patent ductus arteriosus. Evaluation in lambs and preliminary clinical results. Invest Radiol 1997; 32: 523–528.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baykan, A, Narin, N, Özyurt, A, et al. Do we need a femoral artery route for transvenous PDA closure in children with ADO-I? Anatol J Cardiol 2015; 15: 242–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garg, G, Srivastava, A, Tyagi, H, Reddy, SP, Radha, AS. Transcatheter device closure of patent ductus arteriosus without arterial access - Single institution experience. Indian Heart J 2013; 65: 546–551.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed