Transcatheter Atrial Septal Defect Closure in Children with and without Fluoroscopy: A Comparison

Table 2

Illustration of different device types used for interventional ASD device closure in both groups, technically challenging or special events occurring during cardiac catheter device closure procedures in both groups [significantly more events in the fluoroscopy group (p<0.001)] and illustration of intraprocedural complications and complications within 24 hours after procedure in both groups.

Variables	Fluoroscopy Group	TOE Group
	(n = 238)	(n = 159)
Device Types
Amplatzer™ Septal Occluder, n (%)	167 (72%)	125 (80%)
Solysafe™ Septal Occluder, n (%)	45 (20%)	0
CeraFlex™ ASD Occluder, n (%)	0	11 (7%)
GORE™ CARDIOFORM Septal Occluder, n (%)	4 (2%)	9 (6%)
pfm NitOcclud® ASD-R-Device, n (%)	5 (2%)	13 (8%)
BioSTAR™ Device, n (%)	8 (4%)	0
HELEX™ Septal Occluder, n (%)	3 (1%)	0
Technical Aspects
No event, n (%)	191 (80%)	149 (94%)
Two devices needed, n (%)	13 (5%)	0
Three devices needed, n (%)	2 (1%)	0
Missizing, n (%)	13 (6%)	5 (3%)
Device repositioning, n (%)	19 (8%)	4 (3%)
Equipment failure, n (%)	0	1 (1%)
Intraprocedural Complications
No complication, n (%)	230 (96.7%)	158 (99.4%)
Device embolization, n (%)	2 (0.8%)	1 (0.6%)
Heart rhythm disturbance, n (%)	6 (2.5%)	0
Postprocedural Complications within 24 hours
No complication, n (%)	230 (96.6%)	155 (97.5%)
Device embolization, n (%)	1 (0.4%)	1 (0.6%)
Heart rhythm disturbance, n (%)	2 (0.8%)	2 (1.3%)
Pericardial effusion, n (%)	2 (0.8%)	0
Vascular access related problems, n (%)	1 (0.4%)	0
Impairment of neighbouring cardiac structures, n (%)	2 (0.8%)	1 (0.6%)