Transcatheter occlusion of the patent ductus arteriosus: a comparison of two devices.
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.
El Mallah
M K
MK
Department of Paediatric Cardiology, Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children, Northern Ireland.
Sands
A J
AJ
Casey
F A
FA
Craig
B G
BG
Mulholland
H C
HC
D006328:Cardiac Catheterization; D002675:Child, Preschool; D004374:Ductus Arteriosus, Patent / Q000628:therapy*; D004621:Embolization, Therapeutic / Q000295:instrumentation*; D006801:Humans; D012189:Retrospective Studies
Heart. 1998 Mar;79(3):220-2
9602651
Curr Opin Pediatr. 1999 Oct;11(5):425-32
10555595
Pediatr Cardiol. 2001 Jan-Feb;22(1):29-33
11123123
Am J Cardiol. 1999 Feb 1;83(3):463-6, A10
10072246
Eur Heart J. 1997 Apr;18(4):625-30
9129893
Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn. 1998 Mar;43(3):295-7
9535367
Am Heart J. 1999 Dec;138(6 Pt 1):1176-83
10577450
Am J Cardiol. 1998 Dec 15;82(12 ):1547-9, A8
9874067
Heart. 1999 Feb;81(2):160-1
9922351
Am J Cardiol. 1997 Jul 15;80(2):242-4
9230177
J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999 May;33(6):1710-8
10334447
N Engl J Med. 1993 Nov 18;329(21):1570-2
8413481
Heart. 1996 Dec;76(6):461-2
9014788
Invest Radiol. 1999 Jan;34(1):65-70
9888056
J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998 Mar 15;31(4):878-82
9525563
Circulation. 1991 Dec;84(6):2313-7
1959187
Am J Cardiol. 1997 May 15;79(10):1430-2
9165178
Lancet. 1992 Oct 31;340(8827):1062-6
1357454
Am J Cardiol. 1997 May 1;79(9):1283-5
9164908
J Am Coll Cardiol. 1997 Dec;30(7):1856-62
9385919
Am J Cardiol. 1997 Dec 1;80(11):1498-501
9399735
Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn. 1997 May;41(1):62-70
9143771
Heart. 1996 Dec;76(6):531-5
9014804