Skip to main content

Table 4 Comparison between devices regarding demographic, device size, complication, and long-term follow-up

From: Long-term outcomes of percutaneous closure of ventricular septal defects in children using different devices: A single centre experience from Egypt

 

Pfm Coil#

N = 32

Hyperion#

N = 21

ADO I#

N = 11

ADO II#

N = 1

AMO#

N = 8

Occlutech#

N = 2

P-Value

Age

10(8.63-12)

9 (6.5–12)

9 (5–10)

7

8.5 (6.25–10.75)

4, 8.5

0.344

Sex (M)

19 (59.4)

10 (47.6)

5 (45.5)

1 (100)

5 (62.5)

1 (50)

0.83

Weight

36 (23.3–45.8)

30 (19.5–38)

21 (17–33)

21**

25 (19.5–49)

12, 22.5**

0.16

Device Size ##

6 (6–8)

10 (10–12)

6 (4–6)

4**

14 (14–18)

6, 8**

0.0001*

Follow-Up Duration

67 (66–96)

45 (42–46)

110 (96–112)

112**

96 (62-114.2)

36, 49**

0.0001*

Immediate Residual

9 (28)

1 (4.8)

2 (18.2)

1 (100)

1 (12.5)

-

-

Long-term residual

1 (3.1)

1 (18.2)

0 (0)

1 (100)

-

-

-

New TR

1 (3.1)

2 (9.5)

1 (9.1)

-

-

1 (50)

-

New AR

-

1 (4.8)

2 (18.2)

-

-

-

-

  1. ADO: Amplatzer duct occluder, AMO: Amplatzer Muscular VSD Occluder, AR: aortic regurgitation, M: male, TR: tricuspid regurgitation, VSD; ventricular septal defect
  2. # Data are expressed as median (interquartile range) or number (percentage)
  3. ## Device size equals waist diameter in mm except for coil and ADO I; it was the diameter of the device’s right end in mm
  4. * P-value significant if ≤ 0.05
  5. ** Not included in statistical comparison because of limited patients (less than 5 patients)