Which patients might be suitable for a septal occluder device closure of postinfarction ventricular septal rupture...

A best evidence topic in cardiac surgery was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was: which patients might be suitable for a transcatheter closure (TCC) of their postinfarction ventricular septal rupture (VSR) rather than immediate surgery? Thirty papers were found using the reported search, five of which represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. The main limitations were the paucity of level 1 evidence on this topic. Only one study provided a prospective series as part of a registry; the remaining were retrospective cohort analyses. Although multivariate analysis may adequately control for measurable biases, unmeasured bias may still exist and influence the results. All studies agreed that timing of intervention is critical in determining the outcome. Patient's preoperative haemodynamic status was a major determinant of postoperative survival. Successful outcome after TCC was in patients with simple defects, <15 mm in diameter that were in the sub-acute (>3.5 weeks) or chronic stage following acute myocardial infarct (AMI). Procedural success rate varied from 73.6% to 91%. Three of five studies looking at TCC closure concluded that procedural success does not necessarily translate to improved outcome. TCC in the acute setting (within four weeks of AMI) led to a high mortality (18%-65%) and increased incidence of complications (up to 41%). These included device embolization, major residual shunting, left ventricular rupture and malignant arrhythmias. One recent study correlated mortality to residual VSR [odds ratio (OR) 0.071, P=0.02], increased time from myocardial infarction to VSR diagnosis (OR 0.757, P=0.04) and increased time from VSR diagnosis to treatment (OR 0.758, P=0.04). The overwhelming recommendations were for immediate surgical intervention in cases of large VSR≥15 mm or where another indication for surgery exists. Three of five studies commented on a lack of a suitable device for PIVSR closure, with highest technical success with the Amplatzer device. In conclusion, small or medium PIVSR (<15 mm) can be treated definitively with Amplatzer closure in the sub-acute and chronic setting with comparable mortality to surgery. In the acute setting where surgery is deemed prohibitive TCC may provide a bridge to stabilize patients with shunt reduction, prior to surgery. The standard of treatment in large defects and PIVSRs in the acute setting remains early surgery.