title: Transcatheter occlusion of the patent ductus arteriosus: a comparison of two devices.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Transcatheter occlusion of the arterial duct is a safe and effective alternative to surgical closure. The Rashkind umbrella occluder and the Cook coil are two established devices, although the former is no longer manufactured.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  To assess any difference in outcomes between the use of the Cook detachable coil and the Rashkind double umbrella in patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) occlusion.
  
  
  METHODS
  A retrospective study of 77 patients in whom PDA occlusion was attempted using the Cook detachable PDA coil from March 1996 to March 2000. A comparison was carried out with patients in whom occlusion was attempted using the Rashkind double umbrella between 1989 and 1996.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The rate of immediate complete occlusion was 24% compared with 29.9% for the Rashkind device. The figure for complete occlusion after 24 hours with the PDA coil was 63% compared with 61.5% in the Rashkind group (p > 0.1). The overall closure rate in the coil group was 72% versus 74.6% for umbrellas.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The outcome in terms of complete duct closure using the Cook coil is comparable with figures obtained using the Rashkind umbrella. Both devices have a good safety profile in the short and medium-terms.
authors.affiliation: Department of Paediatric Cardiology, Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children, Northern Ireland.
authors.forename: M K
authors.initials: MK
authors.lastname: El Mallah
authors.forename: A J
authors.initials: AJ
authors.lastname: Sands
authors.forename: F A
authors.initials: FA
authors.lastname: Casey
authors.forename: B G
authors.initials: BG
authors.lastname: Craig
authors.forename: H C
authors.initials: HC
authors.lastname: Mulholland
mesh_terms: D006328:Cardiac Catheterization; D002675:Child, Preschool; D004374:Ductus Arteriosus, Patent / Q000628:therapy*; D004621:Embolization, Therapeutic / Q000295:instrumentation*; D006801:Humans; D012189:Retrospective Studies
references.citation: Heart. 1998 Mar;79(3):220-2
references.pmid: 9602651
references.citation: Curr Opin Pediatr. 1999 Oct;11(5):425-32
references.pmid: 10555595
references.citation: Pediatr Cardiol. 2001 Jan-Feb;22(1):29-33
references.pmid: 11123123
references.citation: Am J Cardiol. 1999 Feb 1;83(3):463-6, A10
references.pmid: 10072246
references.citation: Eur Heart J. 1997 Apr;18(4):625-30
references.pmid: 9129893
references.citation: Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn. 1998 Mar;43(3):295-7
references.pmid: 9535367
references.citation: Am Heart J. 1999 Dec;138(6 Pt 1):1176-83
references.pmid: 10577450
references.citation: Am J Cardiol. 1998 Dec 15;82(12 ):1547-9, A8
references.pmid: 9874067
references.citation: Heart. 1999 Feb;81(2):160-1
references.pmid: 9922351
references.citation: Am J Cardiol. 1997 Jul 15;80(2):242-4
references.pmid: 9230177
references.citation: J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999 May;33(6):1710-8
references.pmid: 10334447
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 1993 Nov 18;329(21):1570-2
references.pmid: 8413481
references.citation: Heart. 1996 Dec;76(6):461-2
references.pmid: 9014788
references.citation: Invest Radiol. 1999 Jan;34(1):65-70
references.pmid: 9888056
references.citation: J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998 Mar 15;31(4):878-82
references.pmid: 9525563
references.citation: Circulation. 1991 Dec;84(6):2313-7
references.pmid: 1959187
references.citation: Am J Cardiol. 1997 May 15;79(10):1430-2
references.pmid: 9165178
references.citation: Lancet. 1992 Oct 31;340(8827):1062-6
references.pmid: 1357454
references.citation: Am J Cardiol. 1997 May 1;79(9):1283-5
references.pmid: 9164908
references.citation: J Am Coll Cardiol. 1997 Dec;30(7):1856-62
references.pmid: 9385919
references.citation: Am J Cardiol. 1997 Dec 1;80(11):1498-501
references.pmid: 9399735
references.citation: Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn. 1997 May;41(1):62-70
references.pmid: 9143771
references.citation: Heart. 1996 Dec;76(6):531-5
references.pmid: 9014804