Page 14 - Journal of Structural Heart Disease Volume 3, Issue 1

7
Original Scienti c Article
Due to the lack of a dedicated delivery system ear- ly in our study, some di culties were noted while handling the device. We encountered the same draw- backs described by Kudumula et al. [8] and Rioz-Men- dez [13] in term of loading and later detaching the device. Nevertheless, these di culties had minimal impact on our procedure and uoroscopy times due to the experience of the operator and his familiarity with the ADO, which led to bypassing a substantial amount of the learning curve [12]. Ten cases after the launch of our series, the manufacturers introduced important changes, providing a speci c delivery sys- tem and thus minimizing further technical problems.
Although aortic embolization of the ADO I was rarely reported, as even relatively long ducts tend to shorten after being pulled back with the device, we found that some longer PDAs would not be appropri- ately closed with an ADO I and thus required the use of the long variant of the ODO to avoid aortic device dislodgment [3]. The case pictured in Figure 2 high- lights the advantage of this variant. However, the long variant of the device can be a double-edged sword if the shortening of the duct after pullback is not taken into consideration. In one patient, the inappropriate
use of this variant led to the protrusion of the device in the pulmonary artery with mild, insigni cant gradi- ent that completely resolved 6 months later.
Although our study is not comparative, and despite the small number of cases, our experience suggests that the ODO is a safe, e ective, and operator-friend- ly device for PDA closure in patients weighing ≥6 kg with mostly type A PDA. The availability of two dif- ferent length variants makes the ODO a preferable solution for some long and large type D PDAs. Larger case series and longer follow-up, as well as compara- tive studies, would provide additional support for our ndings. It remains to be determined whether the ODO is capable of replacing all preexisting devices in all patients.
Con ict of Interest
The authors have no con ict of interest relevant to this publication.
Comment on this Article or Ask a Question
References
1. Porstmann W, Wierny L, Warnke H, Gerst- berger G, Romaniuk PA. Catheter closure of patent ductus arteriosus: Sixty-two cases treated without thoracotomy. Radiol Clin North Am. 1971;9:203-218. PMID: 4938290
2. Porstmann W, Wierny L, Warnke H. Der Ver- schluss des Ductus Arteriosus in persistent ohne Thorakotomie Thoraxchirurgie. 1967;15:109-203.
3. Saliba Z, El-Rassi I, Helou D, Chehab G, Ab- del-Massih T, Daou L, et al. Analyzing the failures of percutaneous closure of the pat- ent ductus arteriosus in patients over 5 kg. J Invasive Cardiol. 2012;24:434-438. PMID: 22954562
4. Baruteau AE, Hascoet S, Baruteau J, Boud- jemline Y, Lambert V, Angel CY, et al. Tran- scatheter closure of patent ductus arte- riosus: Past, present and future. Arch of Cardiovasc Dis. 2014;107:122-132. DOI: 10.1016/j.acvd.2014.01.008
5. Rao PS. Percutaneous closure of patent ductus arteriosus–current status. J Invasive Cardiol. 2011;23:517-520. PMID: 22147400
6. Saliba Z, El-Rassi I, Helou D, Abou-Jaoudeh
P, Chehab G, Daou L, et al. Development of catheter-based treatment of patent ductus arteriosus: a medium-sized centre experi- ence. Arch Cardiovasc Dis. 2009;102:111- 118. DOI: 10.1016/j.acvd.2008.11.001
7. Al-Hamash SM, Wahab HA, Khalid ZH, Nasser IV. Transcatheter closure of patent ductusarteriosususingAdodevice:Ret- rospective study of 149 patients. Heart Views. 2012;13:1-6. DOI: 10.4103/1995- 705X.96658
8. Kudumula V, Taliotis D, Duke C. The new oc- clutech duct occluder: immediate results, procedural challenges, and short-term follow-up. J Invasive Cardiol. 2015;27:250- 257. PMID: 25929302
9. Abdelbasit MA, Alwi M, Kandavello G, Che Mood M, Samion H, Hijazi ZM. The new Occlutech PDA occluder: Initial human experience. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;86:94-99. DOI: 10.1002/ccd.25878
10. Jang GY, Son CS, Lee JW, Lee Jy, Kim SJ. Complications after transcatheter clo- sure of patent ductus arteriosus. J Korean Med Sci. 2007;22:484-490. DOI: 10.3346/
jkms.2007.22.3.484
11. Abadir S, Boudjemline Y, Rey C, Petit J, Sas- solas F, Acar P, et al. Signi cant persistent ductus arteriosus in infants less or equal to 6 kg: Percutaneous closure or surgery? Arch Cardiovasc Dis. 2009;102:533-540. DOI: 10.1016/j.acvd.2009.04.004
12.Saliba Z, El-Rassi I, Abi-Warde MT, Che- hab G, Daou L, Khater D, et al. The Am- platzer Duct Occluder II: a new device for percutaneous ductus arteriosus closure. J Interv Cardiol 2009;22:496-502. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-8183.2009.00504.x
13. Ríoz-Méndez RE. The New Occlutech Duct Occluder. J Invasive Cardiol. 2015;27:E229.
Hanna, N. et al.
The Occlutech PDA Occluder : A Case Series
Cite this article as: Hanna N, Charbel R, Chehab G, Gerbaka B, Saliba Z. The Occlutech Duct Occluder for Patent Ductus Arteriosus. Structural Heart Disease. 2017;3(1):1-7. DOI: http:// dx.doi.org/10.12945/j.jshd.2017.16.002