摘要
目的:对外科微创封堵、导管介入封堵与体外循环直视修补术3种治疗继发孔房间隔缺损(ASD)的技术进行回顾性对比研究。方法:2006年1月至12月,116例继发孔ASD患者分别接受了外科微创封堵术(A组)、导管介入封堵术(B组)与体外循环直视修补术(C组)的治疗。结果:3组患者均无围术期死亡病例。C组在手术时间,总出血量和术后住院天数等方面均要明显大于A组和B组,后2组间则无明显差异。术后带气管插管时间,C组明显大于A组。住院费用方面,B组要明显高于A组和C组,而后2组间则无明显差异。结论:3种技术均是治疗继发孔ASD的有效方法。外科微创封堵术适应症广、无X线辐射、术后恢复快、住院时间短、费用低及疗效可靠;而且操作简单并利于推广。在很大程度上要优于体外循环直视修补术和导管介入封堵术。
Objective：In this retrospective study, we compared three different procedures, including mini- invasive surgery, transcatheter closure and open-heart surgery, to analyze which technique is possibly the best option for treatment of secundum atrial septal defect. Method： 116 patients were enrolled in this study. Specifically 21 patients were treated by minl-invasive surgery （group A）, 26 by transeatbeter closure （group B） and 69 by traditional open-heart surgery （group C）. The mean age of three groups was 33.7 ± 13.8, 27.1 ±15.6 and （31.8 ± 14.8） years old respectively. Meanwhile the diameters of atrial septal defect were 23.0 ± 7.9, 18.3 ±6.8 and （26.5 ± 7.8） ram, respectively. Result： There was no perioperative death in each group. The success rate of treatment was 95.2 % for group A, 92.3% for group B and 100% for group C. Residual shunt incidence of three groups were 0% and 3.8% and 0% respectively. The mean operation time, bleeding and length of hospital stay of group C was significantly higher than group A and group B, but there was no significant difference between group A and group B as far as these three indexes are concerned. The duration of postoperative ventilation of group C was significantly longer than group A. The cost of group B was higher than group A and group C. Conclusion： The three procedures were all effective for treating secundum atrial septal defect. However, the Mini-invasive surgery is more superior to the other two techniques in terms of wide indications, simplicity, radiation damage, recovering, and outcomes.
出处
《心肺血管病杂志》
CAS
2009年第1期14-17,共4页
Journal of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Diseases
