Percutaneous Patent Ductus
Arteriosus (PDA) Closure During
Infancy: A Meta-analysis
Carl H. Backes, MD, a, b, c, d Brian K. Rivera, MS, a Jeffrey A. Bridge, PhD, d, e Aimee K. Armstrong, MD, b, c, d Brian A. Boe, MD, b, c, d Darren P. Berman, MD, b, c, d Tyler Fick, MD, d Ralf J. Holzer, MD, f, g Ziyad M. Hijazi, MD, MPH, f, g Sylvia Abadir, MD, h
Henri Justino, MD, i Lisa Bergersen, MD, MPH, j Charles V. Smith, PhD, k Haresh Kirpalani, BM, MScl
abstract
CONTEXT: Patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) is a precursor to morbidity and mortality.Percutaneous (catheter-based) closure is the procedure of choice for adults and older children with a PDA, but use during infancy (<1 year) is not well characterized.
OBJECTIVE: Investigate the technical success and safety of percutaneous PDA closure during infancy.
DATA SOURCES: Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, PubMed, and Ovid (Medline) were searched through December 2015 with no language restrictions.
STUDY SELECTION: Publications needed to clearly define the intervention as percutaneous PDA closure during infancy (<1 year of age at intervention) and must have reported adverse events (AEs).
DATA EXTRACTION: The study was performed according to the Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis checklist and registered prospectively. The quality of the selected studies was critically examined. Data extraction and assignment of AE attributability and severity were independently performed by multiple observers. Outcomes were agreed on a priori. Data were pooled by using a random-effects model.
RESULTS: Thirty-eight studies were included; no randomized controlled trials were found. Technical success of percutaneous PDA closure was 92.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 88.8–95.0). Overall AE and clinically significant AE incidence was 23.3% (95% CI 16.5–30.8) and 10.1% (95% CI 7.8–12.5), respectively. Significant heterogeneity and publication bias were observed.
LIMITATIONS: Limitations include lack of comparative studies, lack of standardized AE reporting strategy, and significant heterogeneity in reporting.
CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous PDA closure during infancy is feasible and associated with few catastrophic AEs; however, the limitations constrain the interpretability and generalizability of the current findings.
aCenters for Perinatal Research, bCardiovascular and Pulmonary Research, and eInnovation in Pediatric Practice, and cThe Heart Center, The Research Institute at Nationwide Children’s
Hospital, Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, Ohio; dDepartment of Pediatrics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio; fDepartment of Pediatrics, Weill Cornell Medical College, New
York, New York; gCardiac Catheterization and Interventional Therapy, Sidra Cardiac Program, Sidra Medical and Research Center, Doha, Qatar; hDepartment of Pediatric Cardiology, CHU
mère-enfant Sainte-Justine, Université de Montréal, Quebec, Canada; iSection of Pediatric Cardiology, Texas Children’s Hospital, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas; jDepartment of
Cardiology, Boston Children’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; kCenter for Developmental Therapeutics, Seattle Children’s Research Institute, University of Washington School of Medicine,
Seattle, Washington; and lDivision of Neonatology, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) is considered a significant precursor to short- and longer-term morbidity. 1–3
Percutaneous PDA closure has become the procedure of choice for PDA closure in adults and children 4;
however, generalizable scientific evidence to support its use during infancy (<1 year) is limited.5, 6
Somewhat conflicting results on the safety of percutaneous PDA closure during infancy has led to uncertainty regarding patient selection and optimal timing and indications for percutaneous PDA closure, leaving health care providers with little evidence-based data to guide their clinical management. 7
Previous reviews on percutaneous PDA closure have broadly
investigated outcomes across all age groups, with most interventions performed outside of infancy. 8–10
To our knowledge, no systematic reviews on the feasibility and complication rates among infants undergoing percutaneous PDA closure have been published. Although percutaneous PDA closure is considered a low-risk intervention, 11 procedures
performed during infancy are more complex than are those performed during childhood or adulthood12;
thus, a separate consideration of the potential risks and benefits in this at-risk subgroup is needed. In view of the increasing number of catheter-based closures among infants, 5–7, 13
we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the use and outcomes of percutaneous PDA closure during infancy, while attempting to characterize potential sources of data heterogeneity.
METHODS
Data Sources
This study was performed according to the Preferred Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis 14 and registered with
the PROSPERO database, the
international prospective registry of systematic reviews (http:// www. crd. york. ac. uk/ prospero, identifier CRD42016033924). With assistance from a research librarian (A.G.), the authors performed a comprehensive search of Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, PubMed, and Medline for studies investigating percutaneous PDA closure. Search terms are available by request to the corresponding author. All searches were conducted in January of 2016. No date or language restrictions were applied.
Studies that enrolled patients <1 year of age at the time of percutaneous PDA closure were included in this review. To keep the number of studies manageable, studies were excluded if they evaluated <3 infants undergoing attempted percutaneous PDA closure. We excluded studies that did not provide data on patient age at the time of procedure.
Published studies that enrolled mixed populations (infants and children or adults) were included if individual outcomes of at least 3 infants could be ascertained. Studies were not excluded for lack of adverse events (AEs), but for lack of mention of safety or AE assessment.
Eligibility Criteria
Two reviewers (C.B., B.R.) undertook the application of inclusion/
exclusion criteria. The eligibility of the studies was formulated according to Participants, Interventions, Comparator, Outcomes, and Study Design criteria 15:
Participants: Infants (postnatal age <12 months) who underwent percutaneous PDA closure. Intervention: Percutaneous PDA
closure, defined as closure with either a device (eg, Amplatzer ductal occluder [ADO] [St Jude Medical, Saint Paul, MN]) or coil (eg, Gianturco [Cook Medical, Bloomington, IN], Flipper [Cook Medical, Bloomington, IN],
Nit-Occlud[pfm medical ag, Köln, Germany]).
Comparator: Any; this also included no treatment (conservative management) and any of the currently available treatments (medical therapy, surgical closure). Outcomes: No restriction was
made according to measured outcomes. However, technical success (defined later in this article), overall AEs, and clinically significant AEs (CS-AEs) were the primary outcomes designated a priori.
Study Design: In the absence of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), the inclusion criteria were extended to include trials that were observational (cohort, case series). Decisions on study inclusion were made independently of the data extraction and before the scrutiny of results. Each identified citation was designated as definitively, possibly, or clearly not meeting inclusion criteria by using a standardized screening tool. Both abstracts and full-text reviews were piloted on sample abstracts or articles, respectively, to ensure reviewer consistency in judging inclusion criteria. For each definitively or possibly eligible citation, full-text articles were obtained. Disagreements were settled through discussion, with involvement of a third reviewer (D.B.) as necessary. When data were unclear or missing, the corresponding author was contacted via e-mail at least twice to obtain additional data to make a final determination of inclusion eligibility. When the same center reported multiple eligible case series, each of the series was included in the review. Multiple publications describing the same or overlapping series of patients were combined when feasible.
in the article’s language translated and abstracted data from the article. To ensure accurate translations, all foreign-language articles (n = 38) were translated to English by using computer software previously shown to be effective for systematic reviews. 16 All citations were
imported into an electronic database (EndNote ×4; Thomson Reuters, New York, NY), which was also used for recording screening decisions and data extraction.
Study Quality Assessment
Although the checklist of Jadad et al 17
has been widely used to determine study quality in systematic reviews, it was not relevant here, as no RCTs were identified. Two reviewers (C.B., B.R.) independently assessed the methodological quality of studies by using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for nonrandomized studies, which uses a star system to assess studies on the basis of (1) selection of study groups, (2) comparability of groups, and (3) ascertainment of exposure/outcome. 18 The content
validity and interrater reliability of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were previously established, and the scale continues to be recommended to assess nonrandomized trials. 19 No
studies were excluded on the basis of quality.
Data Abstraction
Authors independently extracted data via an electronic abstraction form, which was pilot tested for consistency among reviewers. Data were collected in a standardized format, as recommended by the Cochrane Non-Randomized Studies Methods Group. 20
Study Outcomes
Consistent with previous reports, technical success was defined as the patient leaving the catheterization laboratory (or alternative setting) with a coil or device in the PDA. Cases in which an implant embolized
during the procedure but was retrieved percutaneously and the PDA closed with a larger or different device (during the same procedure) were considered technical
successes, but also listed as an AE (described later in this article). 11, 21
Procedural abandonments were defined as cases in which the infant left the catheterization laboratory (or alternative setting) without a device or coil in the ductus. Technical failures were defined as cases in which the device or coil was placed and the infant left the catheterization suite, but subsequently required surgical or percutaneous removal at a later time. Residual shunting was defined as angiographic or echocardiographic evidence of shunting after device placement at longest reported follow-up. Procedural details of the catheterization, including case duration, access sites (arterial, venous), and type of device/coil were abstracted, when available. When multiple device placements were attempted, only the final implant was recorded. To compare potential changes over time in risk of an AE, including embolization rates, the cohort was divided into the following epochs based on year of study publication: “first epoch” (1994–2009) and “second epoch” (2010–2016).
AEs were recorded and assessed independently by 2 pediatric cardiac catheterization (cardiac interventionalist) physicians (B.B., A.A.) based on previous work by Bergersen and colleagues. 22
Consistent with previous work, AEs were stratified according to severity level (1–5). 22 AE levels 1 or 2 were
considered clinically nonsignificant (CNS-AE), and levels 3 to 5
considered CS-AE, with levels 4 and 5 considered major and catastrophic, respectively (Supplemental Table 4). AEs were further categorized into 4 subheadings: (1) access-related, (2) sedation or airway, (3) general
catheterization, and (4) device/ coil-related (Supplemental
Table 5). 23 The degree of association
between the intervention and the AE was assessed independently (A.A., B.B.) by using the causality algorithm used by the World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for International Drug Monitoring; terminology was modified for use for a device rather than for a pharmacological product. 24 Only AEs
adjudicated as probable, probable/ likely, or certain were included. Disagreements between reviewers on the assignment of AE, or the degree of causality, were resolved by discussion, and, if necessary, a third party was consulted (D.B.).
Synthesis of Results and Statistical Analysis
A random-effects meta-analysis model was selected a priori based on the assumption that treatment effects were heterogeneous based on expected differences in study designs and patient characteristics among studies. However, by using a fixed effects model, results did not consistently change (data available on request). Denominators were adjusted, where appropriate, to include the number of reported cases or outcome of interest. For each primary outcome, the incidence and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. A forest plot was used to illustrate the individual study findings and the random-effects meta-analysis results for primary outcomes. Although traditional meta-analysis methods for calculating prevalence is based on the inverse variance method, this puts undue weight on the studies with small or large prevalence; therefore, we used MetaXL data analysis software (EpiGear International Pty Ltd, Queensland, Australia) with the double arcsine transformation. 25
The I2 statistic was used to estimate
heterogeneity of effects across studies. Consistent with previous studies, values of ≤25%, 25% to 75%, and ≥75% represented low, moderate, and high heterogeneity, respectively. 26 Publication bias was
visually assessed with funnel and Doi plots (not shown, data available on request) and quantitatively assessed by using the LFK Index (no bias, index within ±1; minor bias, index exceeds ±1 but within ±2; major bias, index exceeds ±2). 27 –30
Subgroup analyses (χ2 or Fisher’s
exact test) were undertaken to explore potential differences and sources of heterogeneity in outcomes. Consistent with previous studies, 31–33 we compared outcomes
among infants <6 kg versus those ≥6 kg. Although our objective was to evaluate percutaneous PDA closure as a generic technique, embolization rates from device and coil arms were compared. Differences in the overall AE rates between first and second epochs were also compared. A P < .05 was considered significant for overall effect.
RESULTS
The flow diagram ( Fig 1) summarizes the identified, screened, eligible, and included studies. The most common reason for exclusion in the full-text review was <3 infants included in the study. Interrater agreement on the inclusion/exclusion of articles was good (κ = 0.82).
Study characteristics, representing 635 infants, are summarized in Table 1. The sample sizes from the studies meeting inclusion criteria ranged from 3 to 94 patients. No RCTs comparing percutaneous PDA closure with alternative management strategies (surgical ligation,
conservative management, drug therapy) were found. Included studies were highly diverse with regard to the participants, interventions, and outcome measures. Interrater
agreement on the methodological quality of included articles was good (κ = 0.74). Studies ranged from 4 to 9 stars on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (range, 0–9; a lower score indicates methodological weakness).
Aggregate data synthesis of the included studies is shown in Table 2. Included studies reported outcomes from 18 countries, with 9 studies performed in the United States. Although 1 study reported on factors associated with length of stay and hospital charges, an economic evaluation of direct health care utilization costs, or nonmedical costs assumed by affected parties (parents, families) was not performed by any of the included studies.
Technical Success (Feasibility)
Technical success with percutaneous PDA closure was 92.2% (95% CI 88.8%–95.0%) with modest heterogeneity (I2 = 32%, P = .03;
Fig 2); minor publication bias was evident (LFK Index = 1.80). Among 40 cases designated as procedural abandonments, the reasons for this included an AE (n = 15), device malposition within the aorta (n = 10), device malposition within the left pulmonary artery (n = 3), technical failure (n = 10), or unknown/ undisclosed (n = 2).
Four cases (0.6%) were considered technical failures. In 1 case, the patient had successful catheter placement of coils in the PDA, which were surgically removed 3 days later due to persistent ductal shunting and hemolysis. In the remaining cases,
FIGURE 1
TABLE 1
Characteristics and Quality of Included Studies (
n
= 38)
Source: Last Name of First Author
,
Year of Publication
Inclusion Criteria or Patient
Characteristics
Exclusion Criteria
No. Cases
Age, mo, Mean ± SD or
Median (Range)
Newcastle-Ottawa Scale
34
Selection, of 4 Stars
Comparability, of 2 Stars
Outcome, of 3 Stars
Abu Hazeem, 2013
13
<4 kg, positive pressure
ventilation Other hear t disease 8 3.7 (1.0–5.3) **** ** *** Adelmann, 2010 35
Preterm, 24–35 wk gestation
None
5
8.4 ± 3.3
*** N/A *** Abadir , 2009 31 ≤
6 kg, clinically symptomatic
PDA
Pulmonary hyper
tension
56
5.2 ± 2.1
***
N/A
***
Backes, 2016
21
Very preterm; <4 kg
None 52 1.2 (0.3–2.3) *** N/A *** Baspinar , 2015 33
<6 kg, clinically signifi
cant
PDA symptoms
None
16
1.0 ± 0.7
*** N/A ** Baspinar , 2013 36
<10 kg, closure with ADO-
device
PDA closure with other
methods
8
3.4 ± 2.0
***
N/A
***
Baykan, 2015
37
PDA >1.0 mm, closure with
ADO-I
Device other than ADO-I
12
6.9 ± 2.8
*** N/A *** Bentham, 2011 38 a None 3
1.9 ± 0.8
** N/A ** Butera, 2004 39 Moderate- lar
ge PDA, >4.5 kg
None
7
8.5 ± 1.8
*** N/A *** Castaldi, 2012 6 <12 mo
<1 mo and/or weight
<3.5 kg
69
7.7 ± 2.7
*** N/A *** Fischer , 2001 40 Signifi
cant PDA with volume
overload None 12 4.7 (0.75–11) *** N/A *** Forsey, 2009 41
>4.5 kg, PDA murmur
confi rmed on echocardiography None 5
8.5 ± 2.9
***
N/A
***
Francis, 2010
42
Low weight (>0.8 to <2 kg),
preterm
PDA size >3.5 mm,
<0.8 kg
8
1.5 ± 1.0
***
N/A
***
Gamboa, 2007
43
Clinical/echocardiographic diagnosis of isolated PDA
None
4
8.8 ± 2.2
*** N/A *** Gildein, 1999 44 >5.0 kg None 3
5.6 ± 1.4
*** N/A *** Gross, 2013 45 AVP-II, hemodynamically signifi cant PDA None 8
3.0 ± 2.3
***
N/A
**
Hijazi
b, 1994,
1996 46, 47 Clinical and echocardiographic PDA None 7
6.8 ± 3.1
*** N/A *** Hijazi, 1996 48 ≤
8.0 kg, clinical or
echocardiographic PDA
None
15
6.6 ± 3.5
*** N/A *** Knirsch, 2004 49 ≤ 8.0 kg None 18
6.1 ± 2.9
***
N/A
***
Kobayashi, 2005
50
PDA >3.0 mm
None
6
7.5 ± 3.6
**
N/A
**
Lee, 1999
51
PDA occlusion using Gianturco
coils
Preterm or
, full-term
infants <3 mo
12
5.4 ± 1.7
*** N/A *** Lin, 2009 52 Term infants ≤
3 mo, PDA
>3.0-mm diameter with
symptoms
Preterm infants <36 wk
20
1.7 ± 0.7
**** ** *** Masura, 1998 53 Clinical and echocardiographic PDA None 3
7.6 ± 3.0
***
N/A
***
Moysich, 2015
54
<10 kg, moderate/lar
ge PDA,
Nit-Occluder
None
7
5.9 ± 3.1
*** N/A *** Owada, 1997 55 PDA ≥ 3.5 mm None 8
6.2 ± 2.6
*** N/A ** Prada, 2009 56 <1 y Additional hear t disease 15
6.6 ± 3.1
***
N/A
evidence of late embolizations (>24 hours after successful placement) necessitated device (n = 1) or coil (n = 2) retrieval.
Among 28 studies reporting the incidence of residual shunting after coil or device placement, the incidence of immediate ductal occlusion after device or coil placement was 76.7% (95% CI 65.2%–83.3%) with significant heterogeneity among studies (I2 = 70%, P < .01); major publication
bias was evident (LFK Index = 2.87). Among cases (n = 83) with residual ductal shunting, most (n = 68/83, 82%) subsequently closed within 24 hours. Eight (10%) cases remained patent at longest reported follow-up (range 3–36 months). Severity of residual shunting was trivial (n = 5) or was unknown/not reported (n = 3).
AEs
Overall AE rate was 23.3% (95% CI 16.5%–30.8%; Fig 3). Significant heterogeneity in AE rates was identified among studies (I2 = 82%,
P < .01); mild publication bias was evident (LFK Index = 1.16). Among 140 AEs, causality was assessed as probably (n = 3), probably/likely (n = 57), or certain (n = 80).
Interrater agreement on causality of AEs was good (κ = 0.86). Among AEs, most were CNS-AE (80/140, 57.1%). The rate of CS-AE was 10.1% (95% CI 7.8%–12.5%; Fig 4), with low heterogeneity (I2 = 0%, P = .51), and
evidence of mild publication bias (LFK Index = 1.44). Most CS-AEs (78.3%, 47/60) were level 3 AEs. Among all procedures, level 4 AE (major) or 5 AE (catastrophic) occurred in 1.6% (10/635) and <0.5% (3/635) of cases, respectively. Most major or catastrophic events (92.3%, 12/13) occurred among infants <6 kg. Additional details on level 4 or 5 AEs are provided in Supplemental Table 6. The prevalence of embolization (both coils and devices) was 5.0% (95%
Source: Last Name of First Author
,
Year of Publication
Inclusion Criteria or Patient
Characteristics
Exclusion Criteria
No. Cases
Age, mo, Mean ± SD or
Median (Range)
Newcastle-Ottawa Scale
34
Selection, of 4 Stars
Comparability, of 2 Stars
Outcome, of 3 Stars
Rober ts, 2006 57 Preterm, L → R shunt None 10
8.9 ± 0.6
*** N/A ** Rothman, 1997 58 ≤
4.0 mm “restrictive” PDA,
coil closure
None
3
10.4 ± 0.7
*** N/A *** Saliba, 2009 59 ≥
3.0 kg for coils and
≥
5.0 kg
for ADO
<3 kg
20
3 to <12
***
N/A
***
Sandhu, 2001
60
Infants with PDA
<5.0 kg, PVR (>8 woods
units)
12
7.8 ± 2.5
***
N/A
***
Senga, 2013
61
>4.5 kg; cardiac failure or
cyanosis None 3 N/A *** N/A ** Sivakumar , 2008 62 ≤
6.0 kg, PDA
≥ 4.0-mm diameter , PH Preterm, coarctation 25
5.2 ± 2.4
*** N/A *** Sungur , 2013 63 PDA ≤ 4.0-mm diameter , ADO-II AS Additional cardiac anomalies 35
4.0 ± 2.4
*** N/A *** Thanopolous, 2000 64 L →
R shunt LA dilation ADO
closure
<4 kg, cardiac anomalies, PDA <2 mm diameter
3
6.0 ± 2.0
***
N/A
***
Tomita, 2009
5
<1 y, coil
None 32 7 (1–11) *** N/A ** Vijayalakshmi, 2006 65 ≤
8 kg, lar
ge PDA, ADO used
None
8
7.3 ± 2.4
***
N/A
**
Vijayalakshmi, 2014
66
>2.5 mm PDA diameter
,
pulmonary hyper
tension
Other complex CHD requiring sur
gery 94 N/A *** N/A *** Zahn, 2015 67
<32 wk GA, AVP-II used
None
6
1.0 ± 0.8
***
N/A
***
AVP-II, Amplatz Vascular Plug; CHD, congenital hear
t disease; ECHO, echocardiogram; GA, gestational age; LA, left atrium; N/A,
not applicable (no comparative group); PH, pulmonary hyper
tension; PVR, pulmonary vascular resistance.
a Cases were selected based on agreed criteria of clinical, radiographic, and echocardiographic assessments. b Combined cases from 2 studies.
46,
47
TABLE 1
CI 3.5%–8.5%), with moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 34%; P = .02) and
evidence of major publication bias (LFK Index = 2.6).
Nature of AEs
Device or Coil-Related AEs (Embolization, Malposition)
Device or coil-related complications were the most frequent AEs, occurring in 12.3% (95% CI 7.9%– 17.6%). Moderate heterogeneity in device or coil-related AE rates was identified among studies (I2 =
57%, P < .01) with evidence of major publication bias (LFK Index = 2.18). We observed a higher proportion of coil than device embolizations (21/216, 9.7% vs 11/419, 2.6%; P < .01). Most coil (16/21, 76.2%) and device embolizations (8/11, 72.7%) were retrieved percutaneously. Embolizations (n = 32) were observed to the following: pulmonary arteries (n = 19), aorta (n = 5), internal/ external iliac arteries (n = 1), or uncertain/not provided (n = 7). In 10 of these cases (31.3%), the implant was retrieved in the catheterization laboratory and the PDA closed by using a larger device during the same procedure. In 2 cases (Supplemental Table 6 for details), a device embolized and, despite successful percutaneous retrieval, the patients did not recover from the hemodynamic compromise and died. 31, 65
Access-Related AEs
The rate of access-related complications was 8.2% (95% CI 5.6%–11.2%) with moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 37%, P = .37)
among studies. We observed no evidence of publication bias (LFK Index = 0.57). Access-related complications were the second most frequent AEs (50/140, 35.7%), and included hematoma or transient pulse loss not requiring therapy (n = 19), pulse loss or thrombosis requiring therapy (n = 23), or blood
transfusion for vascular compromise (n = 8).
Sedation/Airway AEs
Two AEs were sedation/airway-related, occurring in 0.3% (2/635) of attempted PDA closures and comprising <1% of reported AEs. One sedation/airway-related AE was the need to reposition an endotracheal
tube during the catheterization, 21
whereas a second was need for transient bag-and-mask ventilation for apnea during the procedure. 42
General Catheterization AEs
Among 16 general catheterization AEs, 1 death was attributed to the catheterization. In this case, a 1.5-kg premature infant with multiple
TABLE 2 Aggregate Data Synthesis for 38 Included Studies
Characteristics No. of Studies (%)
Location of studya
United States 9 (24)
Europe 18 (47)
Asia 9 (24)
Africa 1 (3)
South America 1 (3)
Age of included patients
All <1 y 13 (34)
Mixed cohortb 25 (66)
Medical treatment of PDA before catheterization
All cases 3 (8)
Yes, in some cases 8 (21)
Not specifi ed 27 (71)
Indications provided for PDA closure
Left-sided volume loading 13 (24)
Pulmonary hypertension 2 (5)
Persistent oxygen requirement 2 (5)
Multiple indications for closure 12 (32)
No indications provided 9 (27)
Vascular access
Venous only 13 (34)
Arterial and venous 25 (66)
Sheath sizes used, French
Arterial, range 3–7
Venous, range 4–7
Implants
ADO (all types) 23 (61)
AVP 5 (13)
Cook, Gianturco, or Flipper coils 4 (11)
Nit-Occlud coils 2 (5)
Mix (devices or coils) 4 (11)
Reported the cost of the intervention 0 (0)
No. of Cases (%) Weight at time of procedure, c kg
<3 103 (19)
3–6 255 (48)
>6 171 (32)
Krichenko 68 classifi cationsd
Type A 157 (50)
Type B 10 (3)
Type C 100 (32)
Type D 8 (3)
Type E 39 (12)
Mixed Type 4 (1)
AVP, Amplatzer Vascular Plug.
a According to location of fi rst author.
b Studies that included patients ≥1 y at time of intervention; only infants <1 y were included in present analysis. c Data from 2 studies with missing weight at time of catheterization were excluded. 60, 65
comorbidities had a suspected cardiac perforation and underwent emergent pericardiocentesis; however, the infant did not respond to resuscitation and died. 33
Subgroup Analysis of Outcomes
Subgroup analyses were performed to explore potential sources of heterogeneity in primary outcomes ( Table 3). No variables influenced the rate of technical success
(feasibility). The incidence of CS-AEs was more than twofold to threefold higher among studies with infants weighing <6 kg (14.0% vs 4.8%). Many comparisons were limited
by nonreporting of the variables of interest.
DISCUSSION
This study reports the largest known meta-analysis among infants treated percutaneously for PDA. In 38 studies encompassing 635 procedures, percutaneous closure was associated with 92.2% technical success, 23.3% overall AE rate, and 10.1% CS-AE rate. Although a better understanding of risks associated with percutaneous closure is an important first step, lack of comparative trials (percutaneous closure versus surgical ligation) precludes determination of the
optimal treatment of PDA closure during infancy. 69 Pragmatic clinical
trials using strict inclusion criteria, well-defined treatment thresholds, standardized protocols for AE surveillance, and long-term follow-up are needed to generate relevant and generalizable data to develop evidence-based standards for PDA treatment during infancy. 69–71 This
goal is achievable, but will require a high level of interdisciplinary (neonatology, cardiology,
interventional medicine) and multi-institutional collaboration.
Traditionally, PDA treatments (eg, prophylactic drug therapy) have been applied broadly, irrespective
FIGURE 2
of markers of disease burden. Rather than an “all-or-none approach, ” efforts to develop more individualized approaches to PDA management that take into account markers (clinical, echocardiographic) of adverse ductal sequelae and the natural history of the disease (rates of spontaneous closure) may improve outcomes. 72 For example,
using conservative management (fluid restriction, diuretics, positive pressure ventilation) to reduce symptoms from the PDA, recent data show that approximately two-thirds of infants spontaneously close their ductus before hospital discharge, 73 thereby avoiding the
risks of an unnecessary intervention, without evidence of increasing
risk associated with conservative management. Targeted use of percutaneous PDA closure in the subset of infants whose ductus fails to close after conservative treatment, and who continue to show evidence of adverse ductal consequences (clinical, echocardiographic, serum biomarkers), would enable clinicians to minimize risk and yield the greatest benefits. 72 In the
present review, neither the primary indications for PDA closure, nor the nature and extent of management before referral for closure, were reported consistently; thus, optimal timing and thresholds for percutaneous PDA closure remain unknown and can vary greatly
according to age, weight, and clinical condition. 74
In adults and children with a
persistent ductus warranting closure, percutaneous techniques provide clear advantages over surgical ligation and comprise the treatment of choice for PDA closures beyond the first year of life. 4, 11 Given growing
concerns on the merits and safety of surgical ligation during infancy, 75
percutaneous PDA closure represents a potentially attractive alternative. However, consistent with previous studies, higher rates of overall AEs and CS-AE were observed among a subgroup of low weight (<6 kg) infants. 11 At these lower weights,
providers must be careful not to
FIGURE 3
trade the risks of surgical ligation for those associated with percutaneous closure without producing and examining the necessary evidence base. Early (<7 days of life) surgical PDA ligation seems to have fallen out of favor in recent years, 76, 77 but
surgery remains an important option in the treatment of symptomatic low weight infants, particularly in centers without a dedicated pediatric team of cardiac interventionists. 78, 79
Consistent with previous reports, we observed that access-related injuries are frequently observed in percutaneous PDA closure during infancy. 21, 80 However, inconsistent
reporting precluded a better
understanding of the possible link between sheath size and access-related injuries. Approaches that limit or avoid arterial access, such as the use of fluoroscopy and transthoracic echocardiography to guide transvenous PDA closure, will likely reduce such complications. 67
Our findings suggest that outcomes for percutaneous PDA closure have changed over time, which is likely attributable to new techniques, approaches, and
available technologies. Recent device modifications to the ADO-II AS (St Jude Medical, Minneapolis, MN; not available in the United States) 81 and
reports on the safety and feasibility
of a new, flexible, self-shaping device (Occlutech PDA occluder; Occlutech International AB, Helsingborg, Sweden; not available in the United States) 82 suggest that risk/benefit
profiles are likely to continue to change. Thus, we encourage investigators to document and publish their results to further the collective knowledge.
The inclusion of data from nonrandomized, noncontrolled, and retrospective studies may have introduced bias in the results. Observational studies may report outcomes in “best-case scenarios, ” in which the health care providers feel personally committed to the success
FIGURE 4
of an intervention; thus, reported AE rates may not accurately reflect those events encountered in clinical practice (publication bias). In the absence of therapy randomization, defining any link between
percutaneous PDA closure and AEs was not feasible. Although front-line providers (pediatric cardiac interventionalists) determined the attributability and severity level of AEs based on previous criteria with strong interrater agreement, no formal certifying training was provided. One of the critical steps in remedying the gaps identified in this review is the standardization of definitions and research
methodologies for AEs after cardiac catheterization. 12, 23
Within the meta-analysis,
heterogeneity and publication bias were observed frequently, which confounded data interpretation. Marked variation in the completeness of data reported among studies limited data synthesis. Limited descriptions of patient-selection procedures, including how infants were drawn
from the eligible population, likely increased the risk of selection bias among included studies.
Studies in the present review provided limited or no description of sedation- or anesthesia-related procedures; however, data showing infants to be at the greatest risk for such complications among all pediatric populations 83 suggest
that thoughtful consideration of optimal anesthesia and sedation practices are necessary. Although we evaluate percutaneous PDA closure among infants <1 year at time of intervention, risk/benefit ratios are likely to be continuous in nature and dependent on a number of patient- and procedural-related factors beyond age at intervention. Given the interrelatedness of health and resource utilization, lack of available data on resource use and cost associated with percutaneous PDA closure is noteworthy.
It is possible that relevant published peer-reviewed evidence was not identified, and disagreements about whether specific articles should have
been included may be reasonable. To minimize this risk, we performed a sensitive literature search with assistance from a research librarian, by using a diverse set of databases without language restrictions. Although percutaneous PDA closure may be feasible in some centers, broad generalizability has yet to be demonstrated.
CONCLUSIONS
Percutaneous PDA closure during infancy is feasible and is associated with few major or catastrophic AEs; however, the absence of high-quality studies and significant heterogeneity for main outcomes limits interpretability and
generalizability of current findings. Large, pragmatic, multicenter studies that systematically evaluate existing PDA treatments (percutaneous closure, surgical ligation) are needed to address the fundamental gaps in knowledge documented by this review.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors recognize and thank Dr Michael Borenstein, PhD, a member of the Development Team for Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software and author of Introduction to Meta-Analysis, for his willingness to provide statistical consultation to the current study. The authors also thank Alison Gehred, MS, clinical librarian at Nationwide Children’s Hospital for her assistance in conducting the database searches to locate articles for possible inclusion.
ABBREVIATIONS
ADO: Amplatzer ductal occluder AE: adverse event
CI: confidence interval
CNS-AE: clinically nonsignificant adverse event
CS-AE: clinically significant adverse event
PDA: patent ductus arteriosus RCT: randomized controlled trial
TABLE 3 Subgroup Analysis of Baseline Factors on Primary Outcomes
No. of Studies
No. of Cases Technical Success (Feasibility)
Any AEs CS-AEs
Study design
Prospective 17 138 125 (90.6) 47 (34.1)a 15 (10.9)
Retrospective 21 497 467 (94.0) 93 (18.7) 45 (9.1)
No. of centers
Single center 31 502 470 (93.6) 106 (21.1) 51 (10.2)
Multicenter 7 133 122 (91.7) 34 (25.6) 9 (6.8)
Cohort size
<10 20 113 102 (90.3) 30 (26.5) 11 (9.7)
≥10 18 522 490 (93.9) 110 (21.1) 49 (9.4)
Weight at time of procedureb
<6 kg 18 299 274 (91.6) 92 (30.8)a 42 (14.0)a
≥6 kg 18 230 213 (92.6) 40 (17.4) 11 (4.8)
Year of publication
Pre 2010 23 301 271 (90.0) 94 (31.2)a 28 (9.3)
2010–2016 15 334 321 (96.1) 46 (13.8) 32 (9.6)
Occluder type usedc
Coil 12 115 98 (85.2) 40 (34.8)a 8 (7.0)
Device 21 410 388 (94.6) 90 (22.0) 47 (11.5)
Outcome reporting
<1 y 26 321 291 (90.7) 89 (27.7)a 29 (9.0)
≥1 y 12 314 301 (95.9) 51 (16.2) 31 (9.9)
Data shown as n (% of cases).
aP < .01.
REFERENCES
1. Sellmer A, Bjerre JV, Schmidt MR, et al. Morbidity and mortality in preterm neonates with patent ductus arteriosus on day 3.
Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed.
2013;98(6):F505–F510
2. Evans N, Kluckow M. Early ductal shunting and intraventricular haemorrhage in ventilated preterm infants. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 1996;75(3):F183–F186
3. Oh W, Poindexter BB, Perritt R, et al; Neonatal Research Network. Association between fl uid intake and weight loss during the fi rst ten days of life and risk of bronchopulmonary dysplasia in extremely low birth weight infants.
J Pediatr. 2005;147(6):786–790
4. Schneider DJ, Moore JW. Patent ductus arteriosus. Circulation. 2006;114(17):1873–1882
5. Tomita H, Uemura S, Haneda N, et al. Coil occlusion of PDA in patients younger than 1 year: risk factors for adverse events. J Cardiol. 2009;53(2):208–213
6. Castaldi B, Santoro G, Gaio G, Palladino MT, Iacono C, Russo MG. Transcatheter closure of symptomatic arterial duct
in infants younger than 1 year old.
Pediatr Cardiol. 2012;33(8):1397–1401
7. Baruteau AE, Hascoët S, Baruteau J, et al. Transcatheter closure of patent ductus arteriosus: past, present and future. Arch Cardiovasc Dis. 2014;107(2):122–132
8. Moore JW, Vincent RN, Beekman RH III, et al; NCDR IMPACT Steering Committee. Procedural results and safety of common interventional procedures in congenital heart disease: initial report from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64(23):2439–2451
9. Pass RH, Hijazi Z, Hsu DT, Lewis V, Hellenbrand WE. Multicenter USA Amplatzer patent ductus arteriosus occlusion device trial: initial and one-year results. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;44(3):513–519
10. Lam JY, Lopushinsky SR, Ma IW, Dicke F, Brindle ME. Treatment options for pediatric patent ductus arteriosus: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Chest. 2015;148(3):784–793
11. El-Said HG, Bratincsak A, Foerster SR, et al. Safety of percutaneous patent ductus arteriosus closure: an
unselected multicenter population experience. J Am Heart Assoc. 2013;2(6):e000424
12. Bergersen L, Gauvreau K, Jenkins KJ, Lock JE. Adverse event rates in congenital cardiac catheterization: a new understanding of risks. Congenit
Heart Dis. 2008;3(2):90–105
13. Abu Hazeem AA, Gillespie MJ, Thun H, et al. Percutaneous closure of patent ductus arteriosus in small infants with signifi cant lung disease may offer faster recovery of respiratory function when compared to surgical ligation. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;82(4):526–533
14. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, et al; PRISMA-P Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4:1
15. O’Connor D, Green S, Higgins J. Defi ning the review question and developing criteria for including studies. In: Higgins J, Green S, eds.
Cochrane Handbook for Systemic Reviews of Interventions Version
5.1.0. Chichester, UK: The Cochrane
Collaboration; 2011
Dr Backes was involved in the acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, conception and design of manuscript, drafting the article, and revising it critically for important intellectual content; Mr Rivera and Drs Fick and Holzer were involved in substantial contributions to conception and design of manuscript, analysis and interpretation of data, drafting the article, and revising it critically for important intellectual content; Dr Bridge was involved in the analysis and interpretation of data, drafting the article, and revising it critically for important intellectual content; Drs Armstrong and Boe were involved in the acquisition of data and analysis and interpretation of data analysis, drafting the article, and revising it critically for important intellectual content; Dr Berman was involved in substantial contributions to conception and design and analysis and interpretation of data, drafting the article, and revising it critically for important intellectual content; Drs Hijazi, Abadir, and Justino were involved in the acquisition of data, drafting the article, and revising it critically for important intellectual content; Drs Bergersen, Smith, and Kirpalani was involved in substantial contributions to conceptualization and design of the study, drafting the article, and revising it critically for important intellectual content; and all authors gave fi nal approval of the version to be published, and provide agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
DOI: 10.1542/peds.2016-2927 Accepted for publication Oct 31, 2016
Address correspondence to Carl Backes, MD, Center for Perinatal Research, Nationwide Children’s Hospital, 700 Children’s Dr, Columbus, OH 43205. E-mail: carl. backesjr@nationwidechildrens.org
PEDIATRICS (ISSN Numbers: Print, 0031-4005; Online, 1098-4275). Copyright © 2017 by the American Academy of Pediatrics
FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: The authors have indicated they have no fi nancial relationships relevant to this article to disclose.
FUNDING: No external funding.
16. Balk E, Chung M, Hadar N. Accuracy of Data Extraction of Non-English
Language Trails With Google Translate.
Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2012
17. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials. 1996;17(1):1–12
18. Wells G. The Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Available at: www. ohri. ca/ programs/ clinical_ epidemiology/ oxford. asp. 2015. Accessed February 15, 2016
19. Margulis AV, Pladevall M, Riera-Guardia N, et al. Quality assessment of observational studies in a drug-safety systematic review, comparison of two tools: the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the RTI item bank. Clin Epidemiol. 2014;6:359–368
20. Higgins J, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of
Interventions Version 5.1.0. Chichester,
UK: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011
21. Backes CH, Cheatham SL, Deyo GM, et al. Percutaneous patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) closure in very preterm infants: feasibility and complications. J Am Heart Assoc. 2016;5(2):e002923
22. Bergersen L, Gauvreau K, Marshall A, et al. Procedure-type risk categories for pediatric and congenital cardiac catheterization. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2011;4(2):188–194
23. Bergersen L, Marshall A, Gauvreau K, et al. Adverse event rates in congenital cardiac catheterization—a multi-center experience. Catheter
Cardiovasc Interv. 2010;75(3):389–400
24. World Health Organization–Uppsala Monitoring Center. The use of the WHO-UMC system for standardized case causality assessment. Available at: http:// who- umc. org/ Graphics/ 24734. pdf. Accessed February 1, 2016
25. Barendregt JJ, Doi SA, Lee YY, Norman RE, Vos T. Meta-analysis of prevalence.
J Epidemiol Community Health.
2013;67(11):974–978
26. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring
inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327(7414):557–560
27. Doi SA, Barendregt JJ, Khan S, et al. Advances in the meta-analysis of heterogeneous clinical trials I: the inverse variance heterogeneity model.Contemp Clin Trials. 2015;45(pt A):130–138
28. Doi SA, Barendregt JJ, Khan S, et al. Advances in the meta-analysis of heterogeneous clinical trials II: the quality effects model.Contemp Clin
Trials. 2015;45(pt A):123–129
29. Doi SA, Barendregt JJ, Mozurkewich EL. Meta-analysis of heterogeneous clinical trials: an empirical example. Contemp Clin Trials. 2011;32(2):288–298
30. Barendregt JJ, Doi SA. MetaXL User Guide Version 5.3. EpiGear International Pty Ltd. Queensland, Australia. Available at: www. epigear. com/ index_ fi les/ MetaXL%20 User%20 Guide. pdf. Accessed February 3, 2016
31. Abadir S, Boudjemline Y, Rey C, et al. Signifi cant persistent ductus arteriosus in infants less or equal to 6 kg: percutaneous closure or surgery? Arch Cardiovasc Dis. 2009;102(6–7):533–540
32. Dimas VV, Takao C, Ing FF, et al. Outcomes of transcatheter occlusion of patent ductus arteriosus in infants weighing ≤ 6 kg. JACC Cardiovasc
Interv. 2010;3(12):1295–1299
33. Baspinar O, Sahin DA, Sulu A, et al. Transcatheter closure of patent ductus arteriosus in under 6 kg and premature infants. J Interv Cardiol. 2015;28(2):180–189
34. Deeks JJ, Dinnes J, D’Amico R, et al; International Stroke Trial Collaborative Group; European Carotid Surgery Trial Collaborative Group. Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies.
Health Technol Assess. 2003;7(27):iii–x,
1–173
35. Adelmann R, Windfuhr A, Bennink G, Emmel M, Sreeram N. Extended applications of the Amplatzer vascular plug IV in infants. Cardiol Young. 2011;21(2):178–181
36. Baspinar O, Irdem A, Sivasli E, Sahin DA, Kilinc M. Comparison of the effi cacy of different-sized Amplatzer duct occluders (I, II, and II AS) in children
weighing less than 10 kg. Pediatr
Cardiol. 2013;34(1):88–94
37. Baykan A, Narin N, Özyurt A, et al. Do we need a femoral artery route for transvenous PDA closure in children with ADO-I? Anatol J Cardiol. 2015;15(3):242–247
38. Bentham J, Meur S, Hudsmith L, Archer N, Wilson N. Echocardiographically guided catheter closure of arterial ducts in small preterm infants on the neonatal intensive care unit. Catheter
Cardiovasc Interv. 2011;77(3):409–415
39. Butera G, De Rosa G, Chessa M, et al. Transcatheter closure of persistent ductus arteriosus with the Amplatzer duct occluder in very young symptomatic children. Heart. 2004;90(12):1467–1470
40. Fischer G, Stieh J, Uebing A, Grabitz R, Kramer HH. Transcatheter closure of persistent ductus arteriosus in infants using the Amplatzer duct occluder.
Heart. 2001;86(4):444–447
41. Forsey J, Kenny D, Morgan G, et al. Early clinical experience with the new Amplatzer Ductal Occluder II for closure of the persistent arterial duct. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2009;74(4):615–623
42. Francis E, Singhi AK,
Lakshmivenkateshaiah S, Kumar RK. Transcatheter occlusion of patent ductus arteriosus in pre-term infants. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2010;3(5):550–555
43. Gamboa R, Mollón FP, Ríos-Méndez RE, Arroyo GM, Fogel A, Villa DM. Patent ductus arteriosus closure using a new device: the Nit-Occlud device [in Spanish]. Rev Esp Cardiol. 2007;60(4):445–448
44. Gildein HP, Germeroth O, Lilje C, Krüger M, Wildberg A, Mocellin R. Interventional occlusion of persistent ductus arteriosus Botalli with Gianturco spirals [in Spanish].
Z Kardiol. 1999;88(7):514–520
45. Gross AAR, Donnelly JP. Closure of tubular patent ductus arteriosus in infants with the Amplatzer Vascular Plug II. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;81(7):1188–1193
or multiple Gianturco coils. Am J
Cardiol. 1994;74(9):925–929
47. Hijazi ZM, Geggel RL. Transcatheter closure of large patent ductus arteriosus (> or = 4 mm) with multiple Gianturco coils: immediate and mid-term results. Heart. 1996;76(6):536–540
48. Hijazi ZM, Lloyd TR, Beekman RH III, Geggel RL. Transcatheter closure with single or multiple Gianturco coils of patent ductus arteriosus in infants weighing < or = 8 kg: retrograde versus antegrade approach. Am Heart J. 1996;132(4):827–835
49. Knirsch W, Haas NA, Lewin MA, et al. Percutaneous closure of patent ductus arteriosus in small infants of less than 8 kg body weight using different devices. Eur J Pediatr. 2004;163(10):619–621
50. Kobayashi T, Tomita H, Fuse S, et al. Coil occlusion for patent ductus arteriosus larger than 3 mm. Circ J. 2005;69(10):1271–1274
51. Lee ML, Chaou WT, Wang JK. Transarterial occlusion of patent ductus arteriosus with Gianturco coils in pediatric patients: a preliminary result in central Taiwan. Int J Cardiol. 1999;69(1):57–63
52. Lin C-C, Hsieh K-S, Huang T-C, Weng KP. Closure of large patent ductus arteriosus in infants. Am J Cardiol. 2009;103(6):857–861
53. Masura J, Walsh KP, Thanopoulous B, et al. Catheter closure of moderate- to large-sized patent ductus arteriosus using the new Amplatzer duct occluder: immediate and short-term results. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998;31(4):878–882
54. Moysich A, Happel CM, Laser KT, Kececioglu D, Haas NA. Implantation of the new Nit-Occlud PDA-R device in children below 10 kilogram.
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv.
2015;85(7):1203–1208
55. Owada CY, Teitel DF, Moore P. Evaluation of Gianturco coils for closure of large (> or = 3.5 mm) patent ductus arteriosus. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1997;30(7):1856–1862
56. Prada F, Mortera C, Bartrons J, et al. Percutaneous treatment of atrial septal defects, muscular
ventricular septal defects and patent ductus arteriosus in infants under one year of age. Rev Esp Cardiol. 2009;62(9):1050–1054
57. Roberts P, Adwani S, Archer N, Wilson N. Catheter closure of the arterial duct in preterm infants. Arch Dis Child Fetal
Neonatal Ed. 2007;92(4):F248–F250
58. Rothman A, Lucas VW, Sklansky MS, Cocalis MW, Kashani IA. Percutaneous coil occlusion of patent ductus arteriosus. J Pediatr. 1997;130(3):447–454
59. Saliba Z, El-rassi I, Helou D, et al. Development of catheter-based treatment of patent ductus arteriosus: a medium-sized centre experience. Arch Cardiovasc Dis. 2009;102(2):111–118
60. Sandhu SK, King TD, Troutman WB, Hixon RL III, Kiel EA, Bourgeois KV. Transcatheter closure of patent ductus arteriosus with the Amplatzer duct occluder: short-term follow-up. J
Invasive Cardiol. 2001;13(4):298–302
61. Senga J, Rusingiza E, Mucumbitsi J, et al. Catheter interventions in congenital heart disease without regular catheterization laboratory equipment: the chain of hope experience in Rwanda. Pediatr Cardiol. 2013;34(1):39–45
62. Sivakumar K, Francis E, Krishnan P. Safety and feasibility of transcatheter closure of large patent ductus arteriosus measuring >or=4 mm in patients weighing <or=6 kg. J Interv
Cardiol. 2008;21(2):196–203
63. Sungur M, Karakurt C, Ozbarlas N, Baspinar O. Closure of patent ductus arteriosus in children, small infants, and premature babies with Amplatzer duct occluder II additional sizes: multicenter study. Catheter Cardiovasc
Interv. 2013;82(2):245–252
64. Thanopoulos BD, Hakim FA, Hiari A, et al. Further experience with transcatheter closure of the patent ductus arteriosus using the Amplatzer duct occluder. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;35(4):1016–1021
65. Vijayalakshmi IB, Chitra N, Rajasri R, Vasudevan K. Initial clinical experience in transcatheter closure of large patent arterial ducts in infants using the modifi ed and angled Amplatzler
duct occluder. Cardiol Young. 2006;16(4):378–384
66. Vijayalakshmi IB, Setty N, Narasimhan C, Singla V, Manjunath CN.
Percutaneous device closure of patent ductus arteriosus with pulmonary artery hypertension: long-term results.
J Interv Cardiol. 2014;27(6):563–569
67. Zahn EM, Nevin P, Simmons C, Garg R. A novel technique for transcatheter patent ductus arteriosus closure in extremely preterm infants using commercially available technology.
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv.
2015;85(2):240–248
68. Krichenko A, Benson LN, Burrows P, Möes CA, McLaughlin P, Freedom RM. Angiographic classifi cation of the isolated, persistently patent ductus arteriosus and implications for percutaneous catheter occlusion. Am J
Cardiol. 1989;63(12):877–880
69. Benitz WE; Committee on Fetus and Newborn, American Academy of Pediatrics. Patent ductus arteriosus in preterm infants. Pediatrics. 2016;137(1):e20153730
70. Bose CL, Laughon MM. Patent ductus arteriosus: lack of evidence for common treatments. Arch Dis Child
Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2007;92(6):F498–F502
71. Weisz DE, McNamara PJ. Patent ductus arteriosus ligation and adverse outcomes: causality or bias? J Clin
Neonatol. 2014;3(2):67–75
72. McNamara PJ, Sehgal A. Towards rational management of the patent ductus arteriosus: the need for disease staging. Arch Dis Child Fetal
Neonatal Ed. 2007;92(6):F424–F427
73. Rolland A, Shankar-Aguilera S, Diomandé D, Zupan-Simunek V, Boileau P. Natural evolution of patent ductus arteriosus in the extremely preterm infant. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2015;100(1):F55–F58
74. Reese J, Laughon MM. The patent ductus arteriosus problem: infants who still need treatment. J Pediatr. 2015;167(5):954–956
75. Jain A, Shah PS. Diagnosis, evaluation, and management of patent ductus arteriosus in preterm neonates. JAMA
Pediatr. 2015;169(9):863–872
treatment or morbidity? J Pediatr. 2012;161(4):583–584
77. Chorne N, Leonard C, Piecuch R, Clyman RI. Patent ductus arteriosus and its treatment as risk factors for neonatal and neurodevelopmental morbidity. Pediatrics.
2007;119(6):1165–1174
78. Weisz DE, More K, McNamara PJ, Shah PS. PDA ligation and health outcomes: a meta-analysis. Pediatrics. 2014;133(4). Available at: www. pediatrics. org/ cgi/ content/ full/ 133/ 4/ e1024
79. Brooks JM, Travadi JN, Patole SK, Doherty DA, Simmer K. Is surgical ligation of patent ductus arteriosus necessary? The Western Australian experience of conservative management. Arch Dis Child Fetal
Neonatal Ed. 2005;90(3):F235–F239
80. Brotschi B, Hug MI, Kretschmar O, Rizzi M, Albisetti M. Incidence and predictors of cardiac catheterisation-related arterial thrombosis in children. Heart. 2015;101(12):948–953
81. Kenny D, Morgan GJ, Bentham JR, et al. Early clinical experience with a
modifi ed Amplatzer ductal occluder for transcatheter arterial duct occlusion in infants and small children. Catheter
Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;82(4):534–540
82. 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(1):94–99
83. Lin CH, Desai S, Nicolas R, et al. Sedation and anesthesia in pediatric and congenital cardiac catheterization: a prospective multicenter experience.
DOI: 10.1542/peds.2016-2927 originally published online January 13, 2017;
2017;139;
Pediatrics
Henri Justino, Lisa Bergersen, Charles V. Smith and Haresh Kirpalani
Boe, Darren P. Berman, Tyler Fick, Ralf J. Holzer, Ziyad M. Hijazi, Sylvia Abadir,
Carl H. Backes, Brian K. Rivera, Jeffrey A. Bridge, Aimee K. Armstrong, Brian A.
Meta-analysis
Percutaneous Patent Ductus Arteriosus (PDA) Closure During Infancy: A
Services
Updated Information &
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/139/2/e20162927 including high resolution figures, can be found at:
References
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/139/2/e20162927#BIBL This article cites 77 articles, 27 of which you can access for free at:
Subspecialty Collections
http://www.aappublications.org/cgi/collection/cardiology_sub
Cardiology
sub
http://www.aappublications.org/cgi/collection/fetus:newborn_infant_
Fetus/Newborn Infant
following collection(s):
This article, along with others on similar topics, appears in the
Permissions & Licensing
http://www.aappublications.org/site/misc/Permissions.xhtml in its entirety can be found online at:
Information about reproducing this article in parts (figures, tables) or
Reprints
DOI: 10.1542/peds.2016-2927 originally published online January 13, 2017;
2017;139;
Pediatrics
Henri Justino, Lisa Bergersen, Charles V. Smith and Haresh Kirpalani
Boe, Darren P. Berman, Tyler Fick, Ralf J. Holzer, Ziyad M. Hijazi, Sylvia Abadir,
Carl H. Backes, Brian K. Rivera, Jeffrey A. Bridge, Aimee K. Armstrong, Brian A.
Meta-analysis
Percutaneous Patent Ductus Arteriosus (PDA) Closure During Infancy: A
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/139/2/e20162927
located on the World Wide Web at:
The online version of this article, along with updated information and services, is
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/suppl/2017/01/11/peds.2016-2927.DCSupplemental Data Supplement at:
by the American Academy of Pediatrics. All rights reserved. Print ISSN: 1073-0397.
