Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Interventional Pediatric Cardiology Introduction.

The Journal of invasive cardiology·2001
Same author

Synthesis and analgesic activity of some novel 2-substituted 1,3,4-thiadiazolo

Arzneimittel-Forschung·2000
Same author

Pulmonary Stenosis.

Current treatment options in cardiovascular medicine·2000
Same author

Tricuspid Atresia.

Current treatment options in cardiovascular medicine·2000
Same author

History of the Development of Atrial Septal Occlusion Devices.

Current interventional cardiology reports·2000
Same author

Buttoned Device for Atrial Septal Defect Occlusion.

Current interventional cardiology reports·2000

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jul 12, 2026

The WATCHMAN Left Atrial Appendage Closure Device for Atrial Fibrillation
23:33

The WATCHMAN Left Atrial Appendage Closure Device for Atrial Fibrillation

Published on: February 28, 2012

Summary and Comparison of Atrial Septal Defect Closure Devices.

Rao1

  • 1Division of Pediatric Cardiology, Saint Louis University School of Medicine/ Cardinal Glennon Children's Hospital, 1465 South Grand Boulevard, St. Louis, MO 63104, USA. raops@SLU.EDU

Current Interventional Cardiology Reports
|November 30, 2000
PubMed
Summary

Nonsurgical atrial septal defect (ASD) closure devices show similar feasibility, safety, and effectiveness. Device-specific factors like sheath size and cost vary, with no approved options yet for widespread clinical use.

More Related Videos

Echocardiographic Evaluation of Atrial Communications before Transcatheter Closure
07:41

Echocardiographic Evaluation of Atrial Communications before Transcatheter Closure

Published on: February 8, 2022

Closure of a Patent Foramen Ovale (PFO): An Intervention Sequence
10:52

Closure of a Patent Foramen Ovale (PFO): An Intervention Sequence

Published on: December 23, 2022

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jul 12, 2026

The WATCHMAN Left Atrial Appendage Closure Device for Atrial Fibrillation
23:33

The WATCHMAN Left Atrial Appendage Closure Device for Atrial Fibrillation

Published on: February 28, 2012

Echocardiographic Evaluation of Atrial Communications before Transcatheter Closure
07:41

Echocardiographic Evaluation of Atrial Communications before Transcatheter Closure

Published on: February 8, 2022

Closure of a Patent Foramen Ovale (PFO): An Intervention Sequence
10:52

Closure of a Patent Foramen Ovale (PFO): An Intervention Sequence

Published on: December 23, 2022

Area of Science:

  • Cardiology
  • Medical Devices
  • Interventional Procedures

Background:

  • Numerous transvenous devices have been developed for nonsurgical closure of atrial septal defects (ASD).
  • Currently, no ASD closure devices are approved for general clinical use, with many discontinued and others in clinical trials.
  • No prospective, randomized clinical trials exist to directly compare the available devices.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To review the current landscape of transvenous atrial septal defect closure devices.
  • To assess the feasibility, safety, and effectiveness of investigational ASD closure devices.
  • To identify key differentiating factors among devices for future clinical consideration.

Main Methods:

  • Review of existing clinical trial data for various ASD closure devices.
  • Comparative analysis of reported feasibility, safety, and effectiveness metrics.
  • Evaluation of device-specific characteristics including delivery sheath size, implantation ease, cost, and availability.

Main Results:

  • All investigated ASD closure devices demonstrate similar feasibility, safety, and effectiveness based on separate clinical trials.
  • Significant variations exist among devices concerning delivery sheath size, ease of implantation, cost, and availability.
  • No single device has emerged as superior across all evaluated parameters.

Conclusions:

  • While current ASD closure devices show comparable performance, distinct practical considerations necessitate careful selection.
  • Regulatory approval and long-term follow-up data from extensive clinical use are crucial for determining optimal device choice.
  • Further research and comparative trials are needed to guide the selection of the most appropriate device for specific clinical scenarios.