A Comparative Study of Perventricular and Percutaneous Device Closure Treatments for Isolated Ventricular Septal Defect: A Chinese Single-Institution Experience

Abstract

Abstract Objectives: To compare the advantages and disadvantages of perventricular and percutaneous procedures for treating isolated ventricular septal defect (VSD). Methods: A total of 572 patients with isolated VSD were selected in our hospital between January 2015 and December 2016. The patients’ median age and weight were five years (1-26 years) and 29 kg (9-55 kg), respectively. The median diameter of VSD was 6.0 mm (5-10 mm). Patients were divided into two groups. In group A, perventricular device closure was performed in 427 patients; in group B, 145 patients underwent percutaneous device closure. Results: Four hundred twelve patients in group A and 135 patients in group B underwent successful closure. The total occlusion rate was 98.5% (immediately) and 99.5% (3-month follow-up) in group A, which were not significantly different from those in group B (97.7% and 100%, respectively). Patients in group A had longer intensive care unit (ICU) stay than those in group B, but patients in group B experienced significantly longer operative times than those in group A. The follow-up period ranged from 8 months to 1.5 year (median, 1 year). During the follow-up period, late-onset complete atrioventricular block occurred in two patients. No other serious complications were noted in the remaining patients. Conclusion: Both procedures are safe and effective treatments for isolated VSD. The percutaneous procedure has obvious advantages of shorter ICU stay and less trauma than the perventricular procedure. However, the perventricular procedure is simpler to execute, results in a shorter operative time, and avoids X-ray exposure.

Keywords

• Ventricular Heart Septal Defects
• Atrioventricular Block
• Operative Time
• X-Rays
• Treatment Outcome