Objective cases of percutaneous closure of ventricular septal defects (VSDs) have increased obviously in recent years with early and mid-term good results; Minimally invasive perventricular closure of VSDs is another option for perimembranous ventricular septal defects, but a comparative analysis of the different treatments (minimally invasive perventricular vs. percutaneous closure) for VSDs is needed.
Methods Between June 2008 and June 2012, 356 patients with perimembranous VSDs were enrolled in our study, including 252 patients treated with percutaneous closure (percutaneous device group) and 104 patients underwent minimally invasive perventricular device closure (perventricular device group). Several characteristics (e.g. procedure success rate, complications, blood transfusions, early pericardial effusion) were compared between the 2 groups.
Results There were no differences (p > 0.05) between the percutaneous and minimally invasive perventricular device groups according to the success rates (98.0 vs. 97.1%) and occurrences of main complications (1.9 vs. 3.5%). No blood transfusions were needed in the percutaneous device group, while 6 patients (5.8%) required blood transfusions in the minimally invasive perventricular device group. The duration of hospital stay was shorter in the percutaneous device group than in the surgical group (3.2 vs. 10.9 days, p < 0.01).
Conclusions Percutaneous and minimally invasive perventricular device VSD closure are effective methods with fewer complications, but percutaneous group has shorter hospital stay and better cosmetic effect. Two procedures can serve as reasonable alternative treatment for traditional open heart surgery.