DECISION MAKING FOR DEVICE CLOSURE IN ADULTS WITH ‘HYPERTENSIVE PDA’–NON-INVASIVE CRITERIA: IMMEDIATE RESULTS

Ahsan Beg; Abdul Malik; Amjad Mahmood; M Younas; Fakher -e- Fayaz

doi:10.51253/pafmj.v70iSuppl-4.6020

Authors

Ahsan Beg Cardiac Center Quaid-e-Azam Medical College Bahawalpur Pakistan
Abdul Malik Rawalpindi Institute of Cardiology, Rawalpindi Pakistan
Amjad Mahmood Armed Forces Institute of Cardiology/National Institute of Heart Disease (AFIC/NIHD)/National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS) Rawalpindi Pakistan
M Younas *Armed Forces Institute of Cardiology/National Institute of Heart Disease (AFIC/NIHD)/National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS) Rawalpindi Pakistan
Fakher -e- Fayaz Combined Military Hospital Lahore/National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS) Pakistan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.51253/pafmj.v70iSuppl-4.6020

Keywords:

Adult congenital heart diseases, Congenital heart disease, Hypertensive PDA, PDA device closure, pulmonary hypertension

Abstract

Objective: To find the mean pulmonary artery pressures (PAP) in adults (>12 years) Patent Ductus Arteriosus (PDA) with ‘reversible pulmonary hypertension’ after the device closure. Residual PDA and immediate complications (embolization, pulse loss, obstruction in the aorta or pulmonary artery) are to be reported.

Study Design: Retrospective study.

Place and Duration of Study: Tertiary Care Referral Hospital, from Aug 2007 to Jun 2020.

Methodology: This retrospective study is descriptive. Data collected by convenience sampling from 3 tertiary care referral hospital. 981 patients were undergone PDA device closure during the period from Aug 2007 to June 2020. After informed consent, an initial assessment was done by history, clinical examination, x-ray chest PA view, electrocardiography (ECG), and transthoracic echocardiography (TTE). Reversible pulmonary hypertension was labeled based on non-invasive criteria including room air saturation >93% and cardiomegaly on x-ray chest. Patients who had <93% and normal heart size on x-ray chest were excluded. The lower limit for age was 12 years.

Results: Nine Hundred Eighty One patients had undergone PDA device closure. 32 (n=32/981 3.3%) had fulfilled our inclusion criteria. The mean age was 22 ± 9 (13–45) years. Mean weight was 41 ± 11 (25-66) kg. Successful device closure was done in 30 patients (93.7%). Mean diameter of PDA was 7 ± 0.1 (4.5-13 mm. Mean PAP decreased from 59 ± 13 mmHg to 38 ± 19 mmHg (p<0.05). Commonest device used was Shasma duct occluder (n=16/32 50%) followed by Occlutech Duct Occluder (n=7/32 21.9%), while 2 had muscular VSD device (n=5/32 15.6%). In 2 patients, there was an underestimation of the size of PDA so the device was retrieved and replaced with another larger one successfully. Two patients had the device fully dropped into the main pulmonary artery before it was released. Larger size device was not available at that time so the patients were referred for surgery. None of our patients had device embolization or residual shunt on echo performed next day to the procedure. Neither any patient had residual pulmonary hypertension on echocardiography. There was no significant obstruction in the aorta in any patients. Two patients had mild left pulmonary artery obstruction. There was no significant obstruction in the aorta in any of our patients. There was pulse loss in 3 patients which were treated successfully with heparin infusion with no residual damage.

Conclusion: Device closure is a feasible option in adults with hypertensive PDA while the decision of reversibility is based on non-invasive criteria.