Journal of the Practice of Cardiovascular Sciences

ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year
: 2021  |  Volume : 7  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 212--218

Clinical profile of patients of ASD device closure with special reference to short and intermediate term complications


Pramesh Gaidhane1, Jayesh Prajapati2, Iva Vipul Patel3, Bhagyashri Bhutada4, Chandrashekhar Yadav2, Krishan Yadav2, Benny Jose Panakkal2 
1 Department of Cardiology, Sahayog Hospital, Maharastra, India
2 Department of Cardiology, U.N. Mehta Institute of Cardiology and Research Centre, Civil Hospital Campus, Asarwa, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India
3 Department of Research, U.N. Mehta Institute of Cardiology and Research Centre, Civil Hospital Campus, Asarwa, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India
4 Department of Radiology, GMC, Gondia, Maharashtra, India

Correspondence Address:
Benny Jose Panakkal
Interventional Cardiologist, Jupiter Hospital, Pune
India

Background: Device closure of atrial septal defect (ASD) is a treatment of choice in selected patients with a suitable defect. We aimed to evaluate short- and intermediate-term outcomes with device closure in special reference to complications in Western Indian population. Materials and Methods: The present prospective observational study enrolled 184 patients with ASD who underwent Device closure. All patients were followed at 15–30 days (short) and 3–12 months (intermediate). Results: Device closure of ASD was done successfully in 180 (97.83%) patients. Systolic (P = 0.02), diastolic (P = 0.007), and mean PA (P = 0.0001) pressure were significantly decreased at postprocedure. Residual defect was resolved in 94.2% of patients by 6 months. Preprocedural Pulmonary artery hypertension was found in 36 (19.56%) patients and was reduced in 15 (8.15%) patients postprocedure and in 10 (5.43%) patients at 1 year. Residual shunt was reported in 34% of patients which was resolved in all by 6 months. At postprocedure and follow–up, patients were developed minor complications included (0.5%) moderate MR, 1 (0.5%) lower respiratory tract infection, and 3 (1.6%) local site hematoma. Eleven (5.98%) major complications involved arrythmia (2.17%), infective endocarditis (0.54%), LAA perforation (0.54%), cardioembolic shock (0.54%), device embolization (0.54%), sudden cardiac arrest (0.54%), intraprocedural acute coronary syndrome (0.54%), and cardiac tamponade (0.54%). Conclusion: Device closure appears to be best available option at the present time. Careful attention to the details of the technique is mandatory to achieve a successful outcome in order to avoid complication related to procedure. Patients of all ages experience reduction in pulmonary artery pressure after percutaneous device closure of ASD.


How to cite this article:
Gaidhane P, Prajapati J, Patel IV, Bhutada B, Yadav C, Yadav K, Panakkal BJ. Clinical profile of patients of ASD device closure with special reference to short and intermediate term complications.J Pract Cardiovasc Sci 2021;7:212-218


How to cite this URL:
Gaidhane P, Prajapati J, Patel IV, Bhutada B, Yadav C, Yadav K, Panakkal BJ. Clinical profile of patients of ASD device closure with special reference to short and intermediate term complications. J Pract Cardiovasc Sci [serial online] 2021 [cited 2022 May 22 ];7:212-218
Available from: https://www.j-pcs.org/article.asp?issn=2395-5414;year=2021;volume=7;issue=3;spage=212;epage=218;aulast=Gaidhane;type=0