The Annals of thoracic surgery · 2014
Percutaneous device occlusion and minimally invasive surgical repair for perimembranous ventricular septal defect.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Chen Zhao Yang, Lin Bing Ru, Chen Wan Hua, Chen Qiang, Guo Xiu Fen, Chen Liang-Long, Ge Jun Bo
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Percutaneous device occlusion and minimally invasive surgical repair for perimembranous ventricular septal defect (pmVSD) are two typical methods to reduce the invasiveness of the conventional operation through a median sternotomy. However, few studies have compared them in terms of effectiveness and cost.
METHODS: Inpatients with isolated pmVSD who had undergone percutaneous device occlusion or minimally invasive surgical repair from June 2009 to June 2012 were reviewed for a comparative investigation between the two procedures.
RESULTS: Procedure success was achieved in 80 percutaneous (93.0%) and in 113 surgical (98.3%) procedures (p=0.076). Percutaneous patients were older, with a smaller VSD size than surgical patients (16±11.7 vs 3.8±2.4 mm, p<0.001; 4.0±1.2 vs 4.3±1.3 mm, p=0.034, respectively). Major complications occurred in 1 percutaneous (1.2%) and in 4 surgical (3.5%) procedures (p=0.602), and minor complications occurred in 27 percutaneous (33.3%) and in 37 surgical (32.2%) procedures (p=0.991). The surgical repair cost 31% less than the device occlusion (¥20,565±¥3,497 vs ¥29,795±¥2,643, p<0.001), where most of the cost was attributed to the occluder in the amount of ¥19,500.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared with device occlusion, minimally invasive surgical repair can provide comparable efficacy and complication rates. In addition, it is 31% cheaper than device occlusion. In low-income countries where health care resources are limited, medical resources must be judiciously allocated to the treatment that allows for effective treatment of the largest number of patients.
METHODS: Inpatients with isolated pmVSD who had undergone percutaneous device occlusion or minimally invasive surgical repair from June 2009 to June 2012 were reviewed for a comparative investigation between the two procedures.
RESULTS: Procedure success was achieved in 80 percutaneous (93.0%) and in 113 surgical (98.3%) procedures (p=0.076). Percutaneous patients were older, with a smaller VSD size than surgical patients (16±11.7 vs 3.8±2.4 mm, p<0.001; 4.0±1.2 vs 4.3±1.3 mm, p=0.034, respectively). Major complications occurred in 1 percutaneous (1.2%) and in 4 surgical (3.5%) procedures (p=0.602), and minor complications occurred in 27 percutaneous (33.3%) and in 37 surgical (32.2%) procedures (p=0.991). The surgical repair cost 31% less than the device occlusion (¥20,565±¥3,497 vs ¥29,795±¥2,643, p<0.001), where most of the cost was attributed to the occluder in the amount of ¥19,500.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared with device occlusion, minimally invasive surgical repair can provide comparable efficacy and complication rates. In addition, it is 31% cheaper than device occlusion. In low-income countries where health care resources are limited, medical resources must be judiciously allocated to the treatment that allows for effective treatment of the largest number of patients.