Volume 22, Issue 6 pp. 489-495
Free to Read

Figulla ASD Occluder versus Amplatzer Septal Occluder: A Comparative Study on Validation of a Novel Device for Percutaneous Closure of Atrial Septal Defects

AYSENUR PAC M.D.

AYSENUR PAC M.D.

Clinic of Pediatric Cardiology, Turkiye Yuksek Ihtisas Education and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey

Search for more papers by this author
TUGCIN BORA POLAT M.D.

TUGCIN BORA POLAT M.D.

Clinic of Pediatric Cardiology, Turkiye Yuksek Ihtisas Education and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey

Search for more papers by this author
ILKER CETIN M.D.

ILKER CETIN M.D.

Clinic of Pediatric Cardiology, Turkiye Yuksek Ihtisas Education and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey

Search for more papers by this author
MEHMET BURHAN OFLAZ M.D.

MEHMET BURHAN OFLAZ M.D.

Clinic of Pediatric Cardiology, Turkiye Yuksek Ihtisas Education and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey

Search for more papers by this author
SEVKET BALLI M.D.

SEVKET BALLI M.D.

Clinic of Pediatric Cardiology, Turkiye Yuksek Ihtisas Education and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 01 December 2009
Citations: 36
Address for reprints: Aysenur Pac, M.D., The Clinic of Pediatric Cardiology, Turkiye Yuksek Ihtisas Education and Research Hospital Kızılay S, No: 4, 06100, Sıhhiye, Ankara, Turkey. Fax: + 90-312-312-4120; e-mail: [email protected].

Abstract

Objectives: Occlutech Figulla ASD Occluder (FSO) is an alternative device to Amplatzer Septal Occluder (ASO) with some structural innovations including increased flexibility, minimizing the amount of material implanted, and absence of the left atrial clamp. We aimed to report our experiences with FSO and compare the outcomes of this novel device versus ASO.

Interventions: Between December 2005 and February 2009, 75 patients diagnosed with secundum atrial septal defects underwent transcatheter closure. The FSO device was used in 33 patients, and the ASO was used in 42.

Results: Patient characteristics, stretch size of the defect, device left disc size, procedure, and fluoroscopy time were similar between the groups. However, the difference between device waist size and stretched diameter of the defect was significantly higher, and device delivery sheath was significantly larger in FSO group and device left disc size was significantly lower in the FSO group. In all subjects, the residual shunt was small to trivial during follow-up and the reduction in prevalence of residual shunt with time was similar in both groups (P = 0.68). We found no differences in complication rate between the two devices; however, device embolization to the pulmonary bifurcation in one patient was recorded as major complication in FSO device group.

Conclusions: Both devices are clinically safe and effective in ASD closure. FSO device has similar outcomes when compared to ASO device. Difficulties in selecting the correct device size in larger defects and larger venous sheath requirement need to be evaluated in further studies.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.