房间隔缺损封闭装置的综述与比较。

Rao
{"title":"房间隔缺损封闭装置的综述与比较。","authors":"Rao","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A large number of atrial septal defect (ASD) closure devices have been investigated in an attempt to develop a nonsurgical, transvenous method of occlusion of ASD. Some of the devices have been discontinued and several are in clinical trials at this time, but none are approved for general clinical use. There are no prospective, randomized clinical trials to compare the available devices. Based on separate clinical trials, the feasibility, safety, and effectiveness of all devices appear similar. Considerations pertaining to the size of the device delivery sheath, ease of implantation, cost and availability are different with each of the devices; some devices have advantages in some aspects, and others with another. Approval by the regulatory authorities and larger clinical use with longer follow-up results may eventually determine the most appropriate device for a given clinical use.</p>","PeriodicalId":80270,"journal":{"name":"Current interventional cardiology reports","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2000-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Summary and Comparison of Atrial Septal Defect Closure Devices.\",\"authors\":\"Rao\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>A large number of atrial septal defect (ASD) closure devices have been investigated in an attempt to develop a nonsurgical, transvenous method of occlusion of ASD. Some of the devices have been discontinued and several are in clinical trials at this time, but none are approved for general clinical use. There are no prospective, randomized clinical trials to compare the available devices. Based on separate clinical trials, the feasibility, safety, and effectiveness of all devices appear similar. Considerations pertaining to the size of the device delivery sheath, ease of implantation, cost and availability are different with each of the devices; some devices have advantages in some aspects, and others with another. Approval by the regulatory authorities and larger clinical use with longer follow-up results may eventually determine the most appropriate device for a given clinical use.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":80270,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Current interventional cardiology reports\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2000-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Current interventional cardiology reports\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current interventional cardiology reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

大量的房间隔缺损(ASD)关闭装置已经被研究,试图开发一种非手术,经静脉的方法闭塞ASD。其中一些设备已经停产,一些正在进行临床试验,但没有一个被批准用于一般临床使用。目前还没有前瞻性的随机临床试验来比较现有的设备。根据独立的临床试验,所有设备的可行性、安全性和有效性似乎相似。与器械输送护套的尺寸、植入的便利性、成本和可用性有关的考虑因素因每个器械而异;一些设备在某些方面有优势,而另一些设备在另一些方面有优势。监管机构的批准和更大规模的临床使用以及更长的随访结果可能最终确定最适合特定临床使用的设备。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Summary and Comparison of Atrial Septal Defect Closure Devices.

A large number of atrial septal defect (ASD) closure devices have been investigated in an attempt to develop a nonsurgical, transvenous method of occlusion of ASD. Some of the devices have been discontinued and several are in clinical trials at this time, but none are approved for general clinical use. There are no prospective, randomized clinical trials to compare the available devices. Based on separate clinical trials, the feasibility, safety, and effectiveness of all devices appear similar. Considerations pertaining to the size of the device delivery sheath, ease of implantation, cost and availability are different with each of the devices; some devices have advantages in some aspects, and others with another. Approval by the regulatory authorities and larger clinical use with longer follow-up results may eventually determine the most appropriate device for a given clinical use.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信