Safety and Efficacy of Zero Fluoroscopy Patent Ductus Arteriosus Closure in Comparison to the Standardized Fluoroscopy-Guided Procedure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

IF 2.2 Q2 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Brian Mendel, Kelvin Kohar, Richie Jonathan Djiu, Defin Allevia Yumnanisha, Ananda Pipphali Vidya, Justin Winarta, Karunia Hafifah Arifin, Muhammad Dzaky Erlangga Mumtaz, Aqilla Katrita Zaira Nugroho, Gusti Ngurah Prana Jagannatha, Sisca Natalia Siagian, Radityo Prakoso
{"title":"Safety and Efficacy of Zero Fluoroscopy Patent Ductus Arteriosus Closure in Comparison to the Standardized Fluoroscopy-Guided Procedure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Brian Mendel, Kelvin Kohar, Richie Jonathan Djiu, Defin Allevia Yumnanisha, Ananda Pipphali Vidya, Justin Winarta, Karunia Hafifah Arifin, Muhammad Dzaky Erlangga Mumtaz, Aqilla Katrita Zaira Nugroho, Gusti Ngurah Prana Jagannatha, Sisca Natalia Siagian, Radityo Prakoso","doi":"10.2174/011573403X338573241101092849","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patent Ductus Arteriosus (PDA) is a common condition in premature infants requiring intervention to avoid problems. Despite improvements in lowering radiation exposure and employing better contrast agents, fluoroscopy is still the most widely employed technique, which exposes interventional echocardiographers to radiation risks. Techniques, such as Transthoracic Echocardiography (TTE)-guided procedures or Transesophageal Echocardiography (TEE)-guided procedures, provide radiationfree options. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of fluoroscopy-guided versus non-fluoroscopy-guided PDA closure techniques with respect to the reduction in procedural risks and improved clinical decision-making when treating hemodynamically severe PDAs in premature newborns. As there is no specific age or cutoff for this procedure, it is crucial to perform it as early as possible to prevent complications, especially if symptoms are already present.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This systematic review has been registered in PROSPERO with registration number CRD42024516321. Three electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar) have been reviewed up to February 2024 to search the literature. The main outcome has been the procedural success rate. The additional outcomes have included procedural-related complications rate. We have performed a proportional meta-analysis using the random-effects model and the DerSimonian-Laird method. The risk of bias in all included studies has been evaluated using the STROBE guideline [1].</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 85 (78 fluoroscopy and 7 zero-fluoroscopy) studies have been included in this study. Percutaneous PDA closure success rate has been significantly higher in zero-fluoroscopy group compared to fluoroscopy guidance [99.4% (95%CI: 98.1-100%) and 94.6% (95%CI: 92.3-97%, test for subgroup differences p < 0.01), respectively]. The complication rate has been similar in both groups [4% (95%CI: 0- 10%) in zero-fluoroscopy and 8.9% (95%CI: 6.5-11.3%) in fluoroscopy group, test for subgroup differences; p = 0.14]. Device embolization has been the most common complication reported in the fluoroscopy group [1.7% patients (95%CI: 1.1-2.3%)]. Meanwhile, the residual leak has been the only complication reported in the zero-fluoroscopy group [15.6% patients (95%CI: 0-37.5%)].</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Patent Ductus Arteriosus (PDA) is common in preemies and requires intervention. While fluoroscopy is widely used with lower radiation and better contrast agents, it still carries radiation risks. Thus, this review has evaluated the safety and effectiveness of fluoroscopy versus zero-fluoroscopyguided PDA closures, aiming to reduce procedural risks and enhance clinical decisions for treating PDA. Zero fluoroscopy techniques for percutaneous PDA closure have been found to yield comparable success rates and procedural outcomes to fluoroscopy-guided procedures. Considering its reduced side effects, zerofluoroscopy is safe and can be the preferred method to guide closures. However, future randomized controlled trials are necessary to better understand the exact role of interventional echocardiography in PDA closures.</p>","PeriodicalId":10832,"journal":{"name":"Current Cardiology Reviews","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Cardiology Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2174/011573403X338573241101092849","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Patent Ductus Arteriosus (PDA) is a common condition in premature infants requiring intervention to avoid problems. Despite improvements in lowering radiation exposure and employing better contrast agents, fluoroscopy is still the most widely employed technique, which exposes interventional echocardiographers to radiation risks. Techniques, such as Transthoracic Echocardiography (TTE)-guided procedures or Transesophageal Echocardiography (TEE)-guided procedures, provide radiationfree options. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of fluoroscopy-guided versus non-fluoroscopy-guided PDA closure techniques with respect to the reduction in procedural risks and improved clinical decision-making when treating hemodynamically severe PDAs in premature newborns. As there is no specific age or cutoff for this procedure, it is crucial to perform it as early as possible to prevent complications, especially if symptoms are already present.

Methods: This systematic review has been registered in PROSPERO with registration number CRD42024516321. Three electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar) have been reviewed up to February 2024 to search the literature. The main outcome has been the procedural success rate. The additional outcomes have included procedural-related complications rate. We have performed a proportional meta-analysis using the random-effects model and the DerSimonian-Laird method. The risk of bias in all included studies has been evaluated using the STROBE guideline [1].

Results: A total of 85 (78 fluoroscopy and 7 zero-fluoroscopy) studies have been included in this study. Percutaneous PDA closure success rate has been significantly higher in zero-fluoroscopy group compared to fluoroscopy guidance [99.4% (95%CI: 98.1-100%) and 94.6% (95%CI: 92.3-97%, test for subgroup differences p < 0.01), respectively]. The complication rate has been similar in both groups [4% (95%CI: 0- 10%) in zero-fluoroscopy and 8.9% (95%CI: 6.5-11.3%) in fluoroscopy group, test for subgroup differences; p = 0.14]. Device embolization has been the most common complication reported in the fluoroscopy group [1.7% patients (95%CI: 1.1-2.3%)]. Meanwhile, the residual leak has been the only complication reported in the zero-fluoroscopy group [15.6% patients (95%CI: 0-37.5%)].

Conclusion: Patent Ductus Arteriosus (PDA) is common in preemies and requires intervention. While fluoroscopy is widely used with lower radiation and better contrast agents, it still carries radiation risks. Thus, this review has evaluated the safety and effectiveness of fluoroscopy versus zero-fluoroscopyguided PDA closures, aiming to reduce procedural risks and enhance clinical decisions for treating PDA. Zero fluoroscopy techniques for percutaneous PDA closure have been found to yield comparable success rates and procedural outcomes to fluoroscopy-guided procedures. Considering its reduced side effects, zerofluoroscopy is safe and can be the preferred method to guide closures. However, future randomized controlled trials are necessary to better understand the exact role of interventional echocardiography in PDA closures.

与标准化透视引导手术相比,无透视关闭动脉导管未闭的安全性和有效性:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析。
背景:动脉导管未闭(PDA)是早产儿的常见病,需要干预以避免问题。尽管在降低辐射暴露和使用更好的造影剂方面有所改进,但透视检查仍然是最广泛使用的技术,它使介入超声心动图医师暴露于辐射风险中。技术,如经胸超声心动图(TTE)引导的手术或经食管超声心动图(TEE)引导的手术,提供了无辐射的选择。本系统综述和荟萃分析旨在评估透视引导下与非透视引导下PDA闭合技术在治疗早产儿血流动力学严重PDA时降低手术风险和改善临床决策方面的安全性和有效性。由于该手术没有特定的年龄或截止时间,因此尽早进行手术以预防并发症至关重要,特别是在症状已经出现的情况下。方法:本系统评价已在PROSPERO注册,注册号为CRD42024516321。三个电子数据库(PubMed, Scopus和b谷歌Scholar)已被审查到2024年2月检索文献。主要的结果是手术成功率。额外的结果包括手术相关的并发症发生率。我们使用随机效应模型和dersimonan - laird方法进行了比例荟萃分析。所有纳入研究的偏倚风险均采用STROBE指南[1]进行评估。结果:本研究共纳入85项研究(78项透视研究和7项零透视研究)。无透视组经皮PDA闭合成功率明显高于透视指导组[99.4% (95%CI: 98.1-100%)和94.6% (95%CI: 92.3-97%,亚组检验差异p < 0.01]。两组的并发症发生率相似[无透视组为4% (95%CI: 0 ~ 10%),透视组为8.9% (95%CI: 6.5 ~ 11.3%),亚组差异检验;P = 0.14]。器械栓塞是透视组最常见的并发症[1.7%的患者(95%CI: 1.1-2.3%)]。同时,残留渗漏是无透视组报告的唯一并发症[15.6% (95%CI: 0-37.5%)]。结论:动脉导管未闭在早产儿中很常见,需要干预。虽然x线透视被广泛应用于低辐射和更好的造影剂,但它仍然存在辐射风险。因此,本综述评估了透视与无透视引导下PDA闭合的安全性和有效性,旨在降低手术风险,提高PDA治疗的临床决策。经皮PDA闭合的零透视技术已被发现具有与透视引导下的手术相当的成功率和手术结果。考虑到其减少的副作用,零透视是安全的,可以作为引导闭合的首选方法。然而,未来的随机对照试验是必要的,以更好地了解介入超声心动图在PDA闭合中的确切作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Current Cardiology Reviews
Current Cardiology Reviews CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS-
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
10.50%
发文量
117
期刊介绍: Current Cardiology Reviews publishes frontier reviews of high quality on all the latest advances on the practical and clinical approach to the diagnosis and treatment of cardiovascular disease. All relevant areas are covered by the journal including arrhythmia, congestive heart failure, cardiomyopathy, congenital heart disease, drugs, methodology, pacing, and preventive cardiology. The journal is essential reading for all researchers and clinicians in cardiology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信