Loading…
Comparison of Three Patent Foramen Ovale Closure Devices in a Randomized Trial (Amplatzer Versus CardioSEAL-STARfIex Versus Helex Occluder)
This randomized trial compared procedural complications and 30-day clinical outcomes of 3 patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure devices (Amplatzer, Helex, and CardioSEAL-STARflex). It examined 660 patients (361 men, 299 women, mean age 49.3 ± 1.9 years), with 220 patients per group. All patients had a...
Saved in:
Published in: | The American journal of cardiology 2008-05, Vol.101 (9), p.1253 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | |
---|---|
cites | |
container_end_page | |
container_issue | 9 |
container_start_page | 1253 |
container_title | The American journal of cardiology |
container_volume | 101 |
creator | Taaffe, Margaret Fischer, Evelyn Baranowski, Andreas Majunke, Nicolas Heinisch, Corinna Leetz, Michaela Hein, Ralph Bayard, Yves Büscheck, Franziska Reschke, Madlen Hoffmann, Ilona Wunderlich, Nina Wilson, Neil Sievert, Horst |
description | This randomized trial compared procedural complications and 30-day clinical outcomes of 3 patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure devices (Amplatzer, Helex, and CardioSEAL-STARflex). It examined 660 patients (361 men, 299 women, mean age 49.3 ± 1.9 years), with 220 patients per group. All patients had a history of paradoxical embolism. All PFO closures were successful technically. Exchange of devices for others was most frequently required for the Helex occluder (7 of 220) and 2 of 220 in either of the other groups. Three device embolizations in the Helex group were retrieved and replaced successfully. One patient with a Helex occluder developed a transient ischemic attack and recovered without treatment. A hemopericardium in that group was punctured without affecting the device. One tamponade in the Amplatzer group required surgical device explantation. In 8 of 660 patients in the CardioSEAL-STARflex group, thrombi resolved after anticoagulation. Sixteen patients (11 in the CardioSEAL-STARflex group, 3 in the Amplatzer group, and 2 in the Helex group) had episodes of atrial fibrillation. PFOs were closed completely in 143 of 220 patients (65%) in the Amplatzer group, 116 of 220 patients (52.7%) in the Helex group, and 137 of 220 patients (62.3%) in the CardioSEAL-STARflex group at 30 days with significant differences between the Helex and Amplatzer occluders (p = 0.0005) and the Helex and CardioSEAL-STARflex occluders (p = 0.0003). PFO closure can be performed safely with each device. In conclusion, the Helex occluder embolized more frequently. Device thrombus formation and paroxysmal atrial fibrillation were more common with the CardioSEAL-STARflex occluder. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT] |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_230373880</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1480888961</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-proquest_journals_2303738803</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNistKw0AUQIei0Pj4h4srXQRmOtomyxBbWhAqbXBbLskNnTKZiXcyRfoL_rRZ6N7V4XDORCQqW-SpypW-EomUcpbm6jmfipsQTqMq9TJPxHfpux7ZBO_At1AdmQjecSA3wMozduRge0ZLUFofIhO80tnUFMA4QNiha3xnLtRAxQYtPBZdb3G4EMMHcYgBSuTG-P2yeEv3VbFrN_T1l9ZkR9nWtY0N8dOduG7RBrr_5a14WC2rcp327D8jheFw8pHdmA4zLfVCZ5nU_5p-AKuGU-U</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>230373880</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of Three Patent Foramen Ovale Closure Devices in a Randomized Trial (Amplatzer Versus CardioSEAL-STARfIex Versus Helex Occluder)</title><source>ScienceDirect Freedom Collection</source><creator>Taaffe, Margaret ; Fischer, Evelyn ; Baranowski, Andreas ; Majunke, Nicolas ; Heinisch, Corinna ; Leetz, Michaela ; Hein, Ralph ; Bayard, Yves ; Büscheck, Franziska ; Reschke, Madlen ; Hoffmann, Ilona ; Wunderlich, Nina ; Wilson, Neil ; Sievert, Horst</creator><creatorcontrib>Taaffe, Margaret ; Fischer, Evelyn ; Baranowski, Andreas ; Majunke, Nicolas ; Heinisch, Corinna ; Leetz, Michaela ; Hein, Ralph ; Bayard, Yves ; Büscheck, Franziska ; Reschke, Madlen ; Hoffmann, Ilona ; Wunderlich, Nina ; Wilson, Neil ; Sievert, Horst</creatorcontrib><description>This randomized trial compared procedural complications and 30-day clinical outcomes of 3 patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure devices (Amplatzer, Helex, and CardioSEAL-STARflex). It examined 660 patients (361 men, 299 women, mean age 49.3 ± 1.9 years), with 220 patients per group. All patients had a history of paradoxical embolism. All PFO closures were successful technically. Exchange of devices for others was most frequently required for the Helex occluder (7 of 220) and 2 of 220 in either of the other groups. Three device embolizations in the Helex group were retrieved and replaced successfully. One patient with a Helex occluder developed a transient ischemic attack and recovered without treatment. A hemopericardium in that group was punctured without affecting the device. One tamponade in the Amplatzer group required surgical device explantation. In 8 of 660 patients in the CardioSEAL-STARflex group, thrombi resolved after anticoagulation. Sixteen patients (11 in the CardioSEAL-STARflex group, 3 in the Amplatzer group, and 2 in the Helex group) had episodes of atrial fibrillation. PFOs were closed completely in 143 of 220 patients (65%) in the Amplatzer group, 116 of 220 patients (52.7%) in the Helex group, and 137 of 220 patients (62.3%) in the CardioSEAL-STARflex group at 30 days with significant differences between the Helex and Amplatzer occluders (p = 0.0005) and the Helex and CardioSEAL-STARflex occluders (p = 0.0003). PFO closure can be performed safely with each device. In conclusion, the Helex occluder embolized more frequently. Device thrombus formation and paroxysmal atrial fibrillation were more common with the CardioSEAL-STARflex occluder. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]</description><identifier>ISSN: 0002-9149</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1879-1913</identifier><identifier>CODEN: AJCDAG</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Elsevier Limited</publisher><subject>Cardiology ; Clinical outcomes ; Clinical trials ; Comparative studies ; Heart ; Medical equipment ; Medical treatment ; Surgical apparatus & instruments</subject><ispartof>The American journal of cardiology, 2008-05, Vol.101 (9), p.1253</ispartof><rights>Copyright Elsevier Sequoia S.A. May 1, 2008</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Taaffe, Margaret</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fischer, Evelyn</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Baranowski, Andreas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Majunke, Nicolas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Heinisch, Corinna</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Leetz, Michaela</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hein, Ralph</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bayard, Yves</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Büscheck, Franziska</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reschke, Madlen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hoffmann, Ilona</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wunderlich, Nina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wilson, Neil</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sievert, Horst</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of Three Patent Foramen Ovale Closure Devices in a Randomized Trial (Amplatzer Versus CardioSEAL-STARfIex Versus Helex Occluder)</title><title>The American journal of cardiology</title><description>This randomized trial compared procedural complications and 30-day clinical outcomes of 3 patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure devices (Amplatzer, Helex, and CardioSEAL-STARflex). It examined 660 patients (361 men, 299 women, mean age 49.3 ± 1.9 years), with 220 patients per group. All patients had a history of paradoxical embolism. All PFO closures were successful technically. Exchange of devices for others was most frequently required for the Helex occluder (7 of 220) and 2 of 220 in either of the other groups. Three device embolizations in the Helex group were retrieved and replaced successfully. One patient with a Helex occluder developed a transient ischemic attack and recovered without treatment. A hemopericardium in that group was punctured without affecting the device. One tamponade in the Amplatzer group required surgical device explantation. In 8 of 660 patients in the CardioSEAL-STARflex group, thrombi resolved after anticoagulation. Sixteen patients (11 in the CardioSEAL-STARflex group, 3 in the Amplatzer group, and 2 in the Helex group) had episodes of atrial fibrillation. PFOs were closed completely in 143 of 220 patients (65%) in the Amplatzer group, 116 of 220 patients (52.7%) in the Helex group, and 137 of 220 patients (62.3%) in the CardioSEAL-STARflex group at 30 days with significant differences between the Helex and Amplatzer occluders (p = 0.0005) and the Helex and CardioSEAL-STARflex occluders (p = 0.0003). PFO closure can be performed safely with each device. In conclusion, the Helex occluder embolized more frequently. Device thrombus formation and paroxysmal atrial fibrillation were more common with the CardioSEAL-STARflex occluder. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]</description><subject>Cardiology</subject><subject>Clinical outcomes</subject><subject>Clinical trials</subject><subject>Comparative studies</subject><subject>Heart</subject><subject>Medical equipment</subject><subject>Medical treatment</subject><subject>Surgical apparatus & instruments</subject><issn>0002-9149</issn><issn>1879-1913</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2008</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqNistKw0AUQIei0Pj4h4srXQRmOtomyxBbWhAqbXBbLskNnTKZiXcyRfoL_rRZ6N7V4XDORCQqW-SpypW-EomUcpbm6jmfipsQTqMq9TJPxHfpux7ZBO_At1AdmQjecSA3wMozduRge0ZLUFofIhO80tnUFMA4QNiha3xnLtRAxQYtPBZdb3G4EMMHcYgBSuTG-P2yeEv3VbFrN_T1l9ZkR9nWtY0N8dOduG7RBrr_5a14WC2rcp327D8jheFw8pHdmA4zLfVCZ5nU_5p-AKuGU-U</recordid><startdate>20080501</startdate><enddate>20080501</enddate><creator>Taaffe, Margaret</creator><creator>Fischer, Evelyn</creator><creator>Baranowski, Andreas</creator><creator>Majunke, Nicolas</creator><creator>Heinisch, Corinna</creator><creator>Leetz, Michaela</creator><creator>Hein, Ralph</creator><creator>Bayard, Yves</creator><creator>Büscheck, Franziska</creator><creator>Reschke, Madlen</creator><creator>Hoffmann, Ilona</creator><creator>Wunderlich, Nina</creator><creator>Wilson, Neil</creator><creator>Sievert, Horst</creator><general>Elsevier Limited</general><scope>7TS</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M7Z</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P64</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20080501</creationdate><title>Comparison of Three Patent Foramen Ovale Closure Devices in a Randomized Trial (Amplatzer Versus CardioSEAL-STARfIex Versus Helex Occluder)</title><author>Taaffe, Margaret ; Fischer, Evelyn ; Baranowski, Andreas ; Majunke, Nicolas ; Heinisch, Corinna ; Leetz, Michaela ; Hein, Ralph ; Bayard, Yves ; Büscheck, Franziska ; Reschke, Madlen ; Hoffmann, Ilona ; Wunderlich, Nina ; Wilson, Neil ; Sievert, Horst</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-proquest_journals_2303738803</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2008</creationdate><topic>Cardiology</topic><topic>Clinical outcomes</topic><topic>Clinical trials</topic><topic>Comparative studies</topic><topic>Heart</topic><topic>Medical equipment</topic><topic>Medical treatment</topic><topic>Surgical apparatus & instruments</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Taaffe, Margaret</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fischer, Evelyn</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Baranowski, Andreas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Majunke, Nicolas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Heinisch, Corinna</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Leetz, Michaela</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hein, Ralph</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bayard, Yves</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Büscheck, Franziska</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reschke, Madlen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hoffmann, Ilona</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wunderlich, Nina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wilson, Neil</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sievert, Horst</creatorcontrib><collection>Physical Education Index</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Biochemistry Abstracts 1</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><jtitle>The American journal of cardiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Taaffe, Margaret</au><au>Fischer, Evelyn</au><au>Baranowski, Andreas</au><au>Majunke, Nicolas</au><au>Heinisch, Corinna</au><au>Leetz, Michaela</au><au>Hein, Ralph</au><au>Bayard, Yves</au><au>Büscheck, Franziska</au><au>Reschke, Madlen</au><au>Hoffmann, Ilona</au><au>Wunderlich, Nina</au><au>Wilson, Neil</au><au>Sievert, Horst</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of Three Patent Foramen Ovale Closure Devices in a Randomized Trial (Amplatzer Versus CardioSEAL-STARfIex Versus Helex Occluder)</atitle><jtitle>The American journal of cardiology</jtitle><date>2008-05-01</date><risdate>2008</risdate><volume>101</volume><issue>9</issue><spage>1253</spage><pages>1253-</pages><issn>0002-9149</issn><eissn>1879-1913</eissn><coden>AJCDAG</coden><abstract>This randomized trial compared procedural complications and 30-day clinical outcomes of 3 patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure devices (Amplatzer, Helex, and CardioSEAL-STARflex). It examined 660 patients (361 men, 299 women, mean age 49.3 ± 1.9 years), with 220 patients per group. All patients had a history of paradoxical embolism. All PFO closures were successful technically. Exchange of devices for others was most frequently required for the Helex occluder (7 of 220) and 2 of 220 in either of the other groups. Three device embolizations in the Helex group were retrieved and replaced successfully. One patient with a Helex occluder developed a transient ischemic attack and recovered without treatment. A hemopericardium in that group was punctured without affecting the device. One tamponade in the Amplatzer group required surgical device explantation. In 8 of 660 patients in the CardioSEAL-STARflex group, thrombi resolved after anticoagulation. Sixteen patients (11 in the CardioSEAL-STARflex group, 3 in the Amplatzer group, and 2 in the Helex group) had episodes of atrial fibrillation. PFOs were closed completely in 143 of 220 patients (65%) in the Amplatzer group, 116 of 220 patients (52.7%) in the Helex group, and 137 of 220 patients (62.3%) in the CardioSEAL-STARflex group at 30 days with significant differences between the Helex and Amplatzer occluders (p = 0.0005) and the Helex and CardioSEAL-STARflex occluders (p = 0.0003). PFO closure can be performed safely with each device. In conclusion, the Helex occluder embolized more frequently. Device thrombus formation and paroxysmal atrial fibrillation were more common with the CardioSEAL-STARflex occluder. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Elsevier Limited</pub></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0002-9149 |
ispartof | The American journal of cardiology, 2008-05, Vol.101 (9), p.1253 |
issn | 0002-9149 1879-1913 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_230373880 |
source | ScienceDirect Freedom Collection |
subjects | Cardiology Clinical outcomes Clinical trials Comparative studies Heart Medical equipment Medical treatment Surgical apparatus & instruments |
title | Comparison of Three Patent Foramen Ovale Closure Devices in a Randomized Trial (Amplatzer Versus CardioSEAL-STARfIex Versus Helex Occluder) |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-31T02%3A07%3A05IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20Three%20Patent%20Foramen%20Ovale%20Closure%20Devices%20in%20a%20Randomized%20Trial%20(Amplatzer%20Versus%20CardioSEAL-STARfIex%20Versus%20Helex%20Occluder)&rft.jtitle=The%20American%20journal%20of%20cardiology&rft.au=Taaffe,%20Margaret&rft.date=2008-05-01&rft.volume=101&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=1253&rft.pages=1253-&rft.issn=0002-9149&rft.eissn=1879-1913&rft.coden=AJCDAG&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cproquest%3E1480888961%3C/proquest%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-proquest_journals_2303738803%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=230373880&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |