Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 9, 2025
Echocardiographic Evaluation of Atrial Communications before Transcatheter Closure
Published on: February 8, 2022
Comparison of perventricular and percutaneous ultrasound-guided device closure of perimembranous ventricular septal
Liu Liu Huang1, Mai Chen1, De Cai Zeng2
1Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, China.
Background:
Ultrasound-guided percutaneous device closure of perimembranous ventricular septal defects (PmVSD) is a minimally invasive recent treatment approach. Perventricular PmVSD device closure is an emerging radiation-free intervention, yet it comes with certain limitations. No studies compared both of these treatment approaches.
Methods:
We performed a retrospective institutional data comparison of percutaneous (PCP Group, n = 138) and perventricular (PVP Group, n = 67) ultrasound-guided device closure procedures in 205 patients with PmVSD between March 2017 and December 2022.
Results:
Patients of the PCP and PVP groups had a median age of 4.9 years (IQR, 3.1-14.0) and 5.3 years (IQR, 3.4-13.1) respectively. The median PmVSD diameter in the PCP Group was 4.0 mm (IQR, 3.3-5.3) and 5.2 mm (IQR, 4.0-7.0) in the PVP Group (p = 0.001). There was no significant difference in success rates between the PCP and PVP Groups (intention-to-treat population, 88.4% vs. 92.5%, p = 0.36; as-treated population, 88.4% vs. 89.3%, p = 0.84). 5/8 failed percutaneous cases that were shifted to the perventricular approach were successful. Compared to the PVP Group, patients of the PCP group experienced a significant decrease in ventilation time, drainage volume, and postoperative hospital stay (p < 0.001). The median follow-up period was 24 months (IQR, 6-42) for the PCP group and 61 months (IQR, 53-65) for the PVP group. The overall severe adverse event rate was 0% in the PCP group and 3.0% in the PVP group.
Conclusions:
Perventricular and percutaneous ultrasound-guided device closure of PmVSD are both effective and safe treatment options. The percutaneous approach offers less trauma and faster recovery and may be the preferred approach in selected patients.
