4.5 Article

Extremely premature infants with patent ductus arteriosus closure Comparative analysis of surgical ligation versus cardiac catheterization-based closure

Journal

MEDICINE
Volume 101, Issue 12, Pages -

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000029103

Keywords

catheter based closure of patent ductus arteriosus; extremely low birth weight infant; extremely premature infants; hemodynamic decompensation after patent ductus arteriosus closure; patent ductus arteriosus; surgical ligation of patent ductus arteriosus

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study compared the hemodynamic stability after closing patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) in extremely premature infants using surgical ligation (SL) or cardiac catheter-based closure (CCC). The SL group had smaller and less mature infants with higher respiratory support. However, there was no significant difference in postoperative hemodynamic decompensation between the two groups.
Our objective was to compare postprocedure hemodynamic decompensation in extremely premature infants who had their patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) closed with surgical ligation (SL) versus cardiac catheter-based closure (CCC). This is a single-center retrospective review of extremely premature ( < 28 weeks) infants who had their PDA closed by SL or CCC. Of the total of 69 infants, 53 underwent SL, and 16 had CCC. Infants in 2 groups were comparable at birth. However, at the time of the procedure, infants in the SL group were smaller, less mature, and had higher respiratory support. Vasopressor use, both pre- and postprocedure, was more common in the SL group. Nineteen percent of the infants in the SL group, compared to 6% in the CCC group (P = .34), required dose escalation or use of vasopressors after the PDA closure. There was no significant difference between the 2 groups in postoperative hemodynamic decompensation. Large, multicenter, prospective study or randomized control trial will help to confirm our findings.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available