Treatment options for the closure of secundum atrial septal defects: A systematic review and meta-analysis☆,☆☆
Introduction
Congenital defects of the atrial septum are common, accounting for 10% to 17% of congenital heart disease [1]. The secundum type atrial septal defect (ASD) is the most common subtype with an estimated incidence of 1 in 1500 live births, accounting for approximately 75% of all ASDs [2]. Though ASDs can be initially asymptomatic, guidelines recommend ASD closure if there is right atrial and/or right ventricular enlargement, even for asymptomatic patients (Class I) [3].
Historically, surgical closure (SC) had been considered the standard of care with excellent long-term results [4], [5]. Over the past few decades, the popularity of transcatheter device closure (TCC) has increased as studies have demonstrated its safety and efficacy [2].
There are few studies comparing SC to TCC, and no clear superiority of one technique over the other is known. Therefore, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety with direct comparisons between TCC and SC approaches for ASD closure.
Section snippets
Methods
A protocol for this systematic review was created, which we posted online and registered in PROSPERO (CRD42016045528). We followed the guidelines outlined by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) [6]; see in Appendix A.
Results
The initial search strategy identified a total of 1742 potential articles (see Appendix A Fig. 1). After removing duplicates and articles not meeting inclusion criteria, we screened 319 titles and abstracts. Only 26 observational studies [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33] satisfied inclusion criteria, and all manuscripts were published in journals written in English; no RCT was
Discussion
Although several studies have shown similar results previously [8], [10], they were mostly small, single institution studies without the significant power to draw appropriate conclusions. To our knowledge, this is the largest-scale meta-analysis that examines the outcomes of TCC vs. SC for secundum ASDs involving 14,559 patients. The analysis provides a comprehensive review of the available evidence to date, doubling the number of studies published in a prior meta-analysis [34].
This
Limitations
Our meta-analysis has several potential limitations. First, a major limitation of this review is the lack of a RCT in the literature. A RCT would have been difficult, given that patients had the prerogative of choice in the treatment options available. As anticipated, the observational studies possessed significant selection bias that could explain, in part, the methodological heterogeneity. Every effort was made to present the outcomes as stratified analyses, however, potential biases are
Conclusions
Closure of ASD using percutaneous therapies is associated with lower mortality, complications and LOS as opposed to surgical closure, which has lower risk of residual shunt. Percutaneous closure of ASDs presents an attractive alternative to surgical closure in the appropriately selected patient. There still remains a very important role for SC of ASD closures, especially in patients with anatomies that may not be favorable for TCC.
Conflict of interest
The authors report no relationships that could be construed as a conflict of interest.
References (40)
- et al.
The incidence of congenital heart disease
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.
(2002) - et al.
ACC/AHA 2008 guidelines for the management of adults with congenital heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Develop Guidelines on the Management of Adults With Congenital Heart Disease). Developed in collaboration with the American Society of Echocardiography, Heart Rhythm Society, International Society for Adult Congenital Heart Disease, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.
(2008) - et al.
Comparison of results of closure of secundum atrial septal defect by surgery versus Amplatzer septal occluder
Am. J. Cardiol.
(2001) - et al.
Minimally invasive or interventional repair of atrial septal defects in children: experience in 171 cases and comparison with conventional strategies
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.
(2001) - et al.
Comparison between transcatheter and surgical closure of secundum atrial septal defect in children and adults: results of a multicenter nonrandomized trial
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.
(2002) - et al.
Percutaneous versus surgical closure of secundum atrial septal defect: comparison of early results and complications
Am. Heart J.
(2006) - et al.
Surgical versus percutaneous occlusion of ostium secundum atrial septal defects: results and cost-effective considerations in a low-income country
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.
(2006) - et al.
Results of the U.S. multicenter pivotal study of the HELEX septal occluder for percutaneous closure of secundum atrial septal defects
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.
(2007) - et al.
Long-term (5- to 20-year) outcomes after transcatheter or surgical treatment of hemodynamically significant isolated secundum atrial septal defect
Am. J. Cardiol.
(2012) - et al.
Long-term outcomes after surgical versus transcatheter closure of atrial septal defects in adults
JACC Cardiovasc. Interv.
(2013)
Transcatheter versus surgical closure of atrial septal defects in children: a value comparison
JACC Cardiovasc. Interv.
Long-term cost-effectiveness of transcatheter versus surgical closure of secundum atrial septal defect in adults
Int. J. Cardiol.
Treatment of isolated secundum atrial septal defects: impact of age and defect morphology in 1,013 consecutive patients
Am. Heart J.
Atrial septal defects in the adult: recent progress and overview
Circulation
Surgical closure of atrial septal defect in patients older than 30 years: risk factors for late death from arrhythmia or heart failure
Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg.
Long-term outcome after surgical repair of isolated atrial septal defect. Follow-up at 27 to 32 years
N. Engl. J. Med.
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement
Ann. Intern. Med.
The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for Assessing the Quality of Nonrandomised Studies in Meta-analyses
Comparison of results and complications of surgical and Amplatzer device closure of atrial septal defects
J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg.
Comparison of atrial septal defect closure using amplatzer septal occluder with surgery
Pediatr. Cardiol.
Cited by (37)
Transcatheter Closure of Atrial and Ventricular Septal Defects: JACC Focus Seminar
2022, Journal of the American College of CardiologyInterventions in Congenital Heart Disease: A Review of Recent Developments: Part II
2021, Structural HeartMigration and Surgical Retrieval of an Amplatzer Septal Occluder into Abdominal Aorta
2020, Annals of Vascular SurgeryCitation Excerpt :In 2017, a meta-analysis by Villablanca et al.2 analyzed 14,500 patients with cardiac procedures performed endovascularly and showed lower mortality, less complications, and shorter hospital stay compared with surgical closure of the congenital communication. Furthermore, analysis of the cost of each procedures showed that endovascular closure is cheaper.2,4 The most widely used device for closing the CIA ostium secundum is the Amplatzer Septal Occluder (ASO).
Very long-term outcomes of transcatheter secundum atrial septal defect closure using intracardiac echocardiography without balloon sizing
2019, Clinical RadiologyCitation Excerpt :Transcatheter-based closure of secundum atrial septal defects (ASDs) is nowadays well accepted as the first-line therapy for simple isolated ASDs in both children and young adults, providing effective closure with a low rate of complications.1,2
Combined hybrid pulmonary valve placement and atrial septal defect closure: Case report and literature review
2020, Cardiology in the Young
- ☆
These authors take responsibility for all aspects of the reliability and freedom from bias of the data presented and their discussed interpretation.
- ☆☆
The paper is not under consideration elsewhere. None of the paper's contents have been previously published. All authors have read and approved the manuscript. Authors have no conflict of interest.