부산대학교 도서관

Objective: This study is designed to evaluate the advantages between peratrial device closure under transesophageal echocardiographic guidance and open heart surgery in atrial septal defect. Methods: From November 2011 to September 2014, 28 patients with atrial septal defect were treated. Fourteen patients received peratrial device closure under transesophageal echocardiographic guidance (TEE group) and 14 patients received cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB group). Clinical parameters during intraoperative and postoperative periods were examined. Results: All patients recovered after surgery without serious complications. Compared with that in CPB group, clinical observations in TEE group showed significant decreases in the operation time (193.6±35.5 vs. 77.4±22.7 min, P<0.05), periods in intensive care unit (31.6±23.3 vs. 17.5±8.1 hours, P<0.05), fluid volume after operation (502.5±439.3 vs. 32.5±7.3 ml, P<0.05), postoperative length of hospital stay (8.9±2.8 vs. 6.8±2.4 days, P<0.05) and total hospitalization cost (7205.9±1617.6 vs. 5882.3±441.2 $, P<0.05). Conclusion: The peratrial device closure of atrial septal defect under transesophageal echocardiographic guidance is a mini-invasive, simple, safe and effective intervention. Its use in the clinical practice should be encouraged.