Brief Reports
Comparison of three different atrial septal defect occlusion devices

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9149(98)00391-9Get rights and content

First page preview

First page preview
Click to open first page preview

References (4)

  • T.D. King et al.

    Secundum atrial septals defectnonoperative closure during cardiac catheterization

    JAMA

    (1976)
  • E.B. Sideris et al.

    Transvenous atrial septal defect occlusion in piglets with a “buttoned” double-disk device

    Circulation

    (1990)
There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (42)

  • Biotextiles for atrial septal defect repair

    2013, Biotextiles As Medical Implants
  • Treatment of isolated secundum atrial septal defects: Impact of age and defect morphology in 1,013 consecutive patients

    2008, American Heart Journal
    Citation Excerpt :

    Percutaneous closure was possible in 67 patients (81%), whereas in the remaining cases (7 multi-fenestrated ASDs, 1 with multiple ASD, and 8 with central defects), procedural failure was mainly related to inadequate stability of the device. Transcatheter technique for ASD occlusion has been developed in the recent years and is now considered valuable alternative to surgical treatment.2-13 However, not all cases of ASD II are suitable for percutaneous treatment.

  • Minimally invasive or interventional repair of atrial septal defects in children: Experience in 171 cases and comparison with conventional strategies

    2001, Journal of the American College of Cardiology
    Citation Excerpt :

    Excluding the anesthesia induction time (which we assumed as being similar for all the procedures), the significantly lower procedure time of the interventional group reflects a lower degree of resource utilization. This holds even more true if one considers that 11 patients of the interventional group were treated with the Microvena Angel Wings device which, as previously reported by our group (13), is associated with a significantly longer procedure than with the Amplatzer device. The longer extracorporeal circulation time required by the minithoracotomy approach compared with the cases treated through a sternotomy relates to a greater technical challenge in setting up a full cardiopulmonary bypass but, with increasing experience, these maneuvers have taken a progressively shorter time.

View all citing articles on Scopus
View full text