Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T08:06:40.991Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Do we still need the surgeon to close the persistently patent arterial duct?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 November 2006

Mohammed O. Galal ,
Arif Hussain  and
Amin M. Arfi
Mohammed O. Galal
Affiliation:
King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Centre, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia Universitaetskinderklinik, Essen, Germany
Arif Hussain
Affiliation:
King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Centre, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Amin M. Arfi
Affiliation:
King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Centre, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Keywords

Transcatheter closuredevicesductus arteriosus
Type
Review Article
Information
Cardiology in the Young , Volume 16 , Issue 6 , December 2006 , pp. 522 - 536
Copyright
© 2006 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Gross RE, Hubbard JP. Surgical ligation of a patent ductus arteriosus. JAMA 1939; 112: 729–731.Google Scholar
Mavroudis C, Backer CL, Gevitz M., Forty-six years of patient ductus arteriosus division at Children's Memorial Hospital of Chicago. Standards for comparison. Ann Surg 1994; 230: 402–409.Google Scholar
Laborde F, Noirhomme P, Karam J, Batisse A, Bourel P, Saint Maurice O. A new video-assisted thoracoscopic surgical technique for interruption of patient ductus arteriosus in infants and children. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1993; 105: 278–280.Google Scholar
Hines MH, Bensky AS, Hammon Jr JW, Pennington DG. Video-assisted thoracoscopic ligation of Patent Ductus Arteriosus: safe and outpatient. Ann Thorac Surg 1998; 66: 853–858.Google Scholar
Porstmann W, Wierny L, Warnke H. Closure of ductus arteriosus persistens without thoracotomy. Radiol Diagn Berlin 1968; 9: 168–169.Google Scholar
Rashkind WJ, Cuaso CC. Transcatheter closure of patent ductus arteriosus. Successful use in a 3.5 kilogram infant. Pediatr Cardiol 1979; 1: 3–7.Google Scholar
Galal O, Nehgme R, Fadley F, et al. The role of surgery in the era of the transcatheter occlusion of the patent ductus arteriosus using the Rashkind double umbrella device. Ann Thorac Surg 1997; 63: 434–437.Google Scholar
Cambier PA, Kirby WC, Wortham DC, Moore JW. Percutaneous closure of the small (<2.5 mm) Patent Ductus Arteriosus using coil embolization. Am J Cardiol 1992; 69: 815–816.Google Scholar
Galal O, von Sinner W, Al-Fadely F, et al. Radiographic characteristics of Cook detachable and Gianturco coils as well as clinical results of transcatheter closure of patent ductus arteriosus. Zeitschrift fuer Kardiologie 1997; 88: 1006–1014.Google Scholar
Galal O, de Moor M, Al Fadley F, et al. Problems encountered during introduction of Gianturco coils for transcatheter occlusion of patent arterial duct. Eur Heart J 1997; 18: 625–630.Google Scholar
Galal MO, Bulbul Z, Kakadekar A, et al. Comparison between the safety profile and clinical results of Cook detachable and Gianturco coils for transcatheter closure of the Patent Ductus Arteriosus in 272 patients. J Intervent Cardiol 2001; 14: 169–177.Google Scholar
Le TP, Neuss MB, Redel DA, Weinzheimer HR. A new transcatheter occlusion technique with retrievable double-disk shaped coils-first clinical results in occlusion of patent ductus arteriosus [abstract]. Cardiol Young 1993; 3 (Suppl I): 38.Google Scholar
Rao PS, Wilson AD, Sideris EB, Chopra PS. Transcatheter closure of patent ductus arteriosus with buttoned device: first successful clinical application in a child. Am Heart J 1991; 12: 1799–1802.Google Scholar
Grifka RG, Vincent JA, Nihill MR, Ing FF, Mullins CE. Transcatheter patent ductus arteriosus closure in an infant using the Gianturco-Grifka Vascular Occlusion Device. Am J Cardiol 1996; 78: 721–723.Google Scholar
Thilen U, Åström-Olsson K. Does the risk of infective endarteritis justify routine patent ductus arteriosus closure? Eur Heart J 1997; 18: 503–606.Google Scholar
onsensus Report AHA Recommendations of the American Heart Association. Eur Heart J 1997; 18: 503–506.
Krichenko A, Benson LN, Burrows P, Moes CAF, McLaughlin P, Freedom RM. Angiographic classification of the isolated, persistently patent ductus arteriosus and implications for percutaneous catheter occlusion. Am J Cardiol 1989; 90: 2525–2529.Google Scholar
Al Ata J, Amin M, Hussain A, Kouatli A, Galal MO. Amplatzer duct occluder: efficacy and safety in young children and infants. Cardiol Young 2005; 15: 279–285.Google Scholar
Ravindarnath DR, Vijayalakshmi IB, Chitra N, Sridhar L, Yavagal ST. Challenges of closing large patent ductus arteriosus with pulmonary hypertension with Amplatzer duct occluder – is balloon sizing needed? Indian Heart Journal 2004; 56 (5): Article No.280 (abstract).Google Scholar
Canadian Adult Congenital Heart Network. www.cachnet.org/managing_recomp1.html (accessed 15th February 2005).
National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Interventional procedure consultation document – endovascular closure of patent ductus arteriosus. www.nice.org.uk (accessed 20th October 2004).
Siwek J, Gourlay ML, Slawson DC, Shaughnessy AF. How to write an evidence-based clinical review article. Am Fam Physician 2002; 65: 251–258.Google Scholar
Sullivan ID. Patent arterial duct: when should it be closed? Arch Dis Child 1998; 78: 285–287.Google Scholar
Villa E, Eynden FV, Le Bret E, Folliguet T, Laborde F. Paediatric video-assisted Thoracoscopic clipping of Patent Ductus Arteriosus: experience in more than 700 cases. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2004; 25: 387–393.Google Scholar
Human DG,McIntyre L, Gnieweck A, Hanna BD. Technology assessment of non-surgical closure of patent ductus arteriosus: an evaluation of the clinical effectiveness and costs of a new medical device. Pediatrics 1995; 96: 703–706.Google Scholar
Laohaprasitiporn D, Nana A, Soongswang J, et al. Transcatheter coil occlusion of small patent ductus arteriosus: experience at Siriraj Hospital. J Med Assoc Thai 2002; 85: 630–639.Google Scholar
Kumar RK, Anil SR, Kannan BR, Philip A, Sivakumar K. Bioptome-assisted coil occlusion of moderate-large patent ductus arteriosus in infants and small children. Cathet Cardiovasc Interv 2004; 62: 266–271.Google Scholar
Hofbeck M, Bartolomaeus G, Buheitel G, et al. Safety and efficacy of interventional occlusion of patent ductus arteriosus with detachable coils: a multicentre experience. Eur J Pediatr 2000; 159: 331–337.Google Scholar
Patel HT, Cao QL, Rhodes J, Hijazi ZM. Long-term outcome of transcatheter coil closure of small to large patent ductus arteriosus. Cathet Cardiovasc Interv 1999; 47: 457–461.Google Scholar
Ing FF, Sommer RJ. The snare-assisted technique for transcatheter coil occlusion of moderate to large patent ductus arteriosus: immediate and intermediate results. J Am Coll Cardiol 1999; 33: 1710–1718.Google Scholar
Shrivastava S, Marwah A, Radhakrishnan S. Transcatheter closure of patent ductus arteriosus. Indian Pediatr 2000; 37: 1307–1313.Google Scholar
Zhang Z, Qian M, Wang H, Li Y. Transcatheter closure of 354 pediatric cases of patent ductus arteriosus using five different devices. Chinese Medical J 2001; 114: 456–458.Google Scholar
Ksil'zyk J, Brzezinska-Rajszys G, Zubrzycka M, Kowalik BRG, Ziolkowska L, Kawalec W. Results of percutaneous coil closure of patent ductus arteriosus – 5.5 years of experience. Kardiologia Polska 2000; 53: 504–507.Google Scholar
Sievert H, Ensslen R, Fach A, et al. Transcatheter closure of patent ductus arteriosus with the Rashkind occluder. Acute results and angiographic follow-up in adults. Eur Heart J 1997; 18: 1014–1018.Google Scholar
Koch A, Hofbeck M, Buheitel G, Gerling S, Rauch R, Singer H. Advances in interventional occlusion of persistent ductus arteriosus: comparison of results using different occlusion devices. Z Kardiol 2001; 90: 120–126.Google Scholar
Tometzki A, Chan K, De Giovanni J, et al. Total UK multi- centre experience with a novel arterial occlusion device (Duct Occlud pfm). Heart 1996; 76: 520–524.Google Scholar
Le TP, Moore JW, Neuss MB, Freudenthal F. Duct-occlud for occlusion of patent ductus arteriosus. Curr Interv Cardiol Rep 2001; 3: 165–173.Google Scholar
Oho S, Shizawa A, Koike K, et al. Transcatheter occlusion of patent ductus arteriosus with a new detachable coil system (Duct Occlud): a multicenter clinical trial. Jpn Circ J 1998; 62: 489–493.Google Scholar
Pass RH, Hijazi Z, Hsu DF, Lewis V, Hellenbrand WE. Multicenter USA Amplatzer patent ductus arteriosus occlusion device trial. Initial and one-year results. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004; 44: 513–519.Google Scholar
Waight DJ, Cao QLM, Hijazi ZM. Transcatheter closure of patent ductus arteriosus using the Amplatzer duct occluder. Curr Interv Cardiol Rep 2001; 3: 263–267.Google Scholar
Thanopoulos BD, Hakim FA, Hiari A, et al. Further experience with transcatheter closure of the patent ductus arteriosus using the Amplatzer duct occluder. J Am Coll Cardiol 2000; 35: 1016–1021.Google Scholar
Beck A, Birk E, Blieden LC, Bruckheimer E. Stent implantation for coarctation of aorta caused by a Rashkind patent ductus arteriosus umbrella. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2004; 63: 80–82.Google Scholar
Uzun O, Veldtman GR, Dickinson DF, Parsons JM, Blackburn MEC, Gibbs JL. Haemolysis following implantation of duct occlusion coils. Heart 1999; 81: 160–161.Google Scholar
Tomita H, Fuse S, Akagi T, et al. Hemolysis complicating coil occlusion of patent ductus arteriosus. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn 1998; 43: 50–53.Google Scholar
Galal MO, Amin M, Hussein A, Kouatli A, Al-Ata J, Jamjoom A. Left ventricular dysfunction after closure of large patent ductus arteriosus. Asian Cardiovasc Thorac Ann 2005; 13: 24–29.Google Scholar
Galal O, Abbag F, Fadley F, Redington A, Szurman P, Oufi S. Transcatheter closure of the patent arterial duct as a day case procedure. Cardiol Young 1995; 5: 48–50.Google Scholar
Yu CH, Chen MR, Hwang HK, Wu SJ. Acquired aortic regurgitation after coil occlusion of patent ductus arteriosus. J Formos Med Assoc 2004; 103: 803–805.Google Scholar
Galal O, Abbag F, Fadley F, Redington A. Reopening of an arterial duct after total occlusion with Rashkind's double umbrella device. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn 1994; 33: 132–134.Google Scholar
Schrader R, Kneissl GD, Sievert H, Bussmann WD, Kaltenbach M. Nonoperative closure of the patent ductus arteriosus: the Frankfurt experience. J Interv Cardiol 1992; 5: 89–98.Google Scholar
Dajani AS, Taubert KA, Wilson W, et al. Prevention of bacterial endocarditis. Recommendations by the American Heart Association. JAMA 1997; 277: 1794–1801.Google Scholar
Priori SG, Klein W, Bassand J-P. Medical Practice guidelines. Separating science from economics. Eur Heart J 2003; 24: 1962–1964.Google Scholar