经导管房间隔缺损封堵术与微创房间隔缺损封堵术临床效果对比研究

Therapeutic effects of transcatheter closure of atrial septal defect and minimally invasive closure of atrial septal defect: a comparative study

目的比较经导管房间隔缺损封堵术与微创房间隔缺损封堵术治疗房间隔缺损的可行性、疗效及安全性。方法将本院收治的98例先天性房间隔缺损患儿随机分为导管组与微创组,导管组行经导管房间隔缺损封堵术,微创组行微创房间隔缺损封堵术。比较两组患者的平均手术时间、平均住院时间、平均治疗费用、治疗成功率,以及并发症的发生情况。结果两组患者治疗成功率无显著差异,导管组平均手术时间、平均住院时间显著低于微创组(P<0.05),微创组费用显著低于导管组(P<0.05),两组患者并发症发生率无显著差异(P>0.05)。结论经导管房间隔缺损封堵术与微创房间隔缺损封堵术治疗对于房间隔缺损疗效显著,有各自的优势与不足,临床应根据患者情况选择。

Objective To investigate the feasibility, therapeutic effects, and safety of transcatheter closure of atrial septal defect （ASD） and minimally invasive closure of ASD in the treatment of ASD by a comparative study. Methods Ninety-eight children with congenital ASD who were admitted to our hospital were randomly divided into catheter group and minimally invasive group to receive transcatheter closure of ASD and minimally invasive closure of ASD, respectively. The two groups were compared in terms of mean time of operation, mean hospital stay, mean treatment cost, success rate of treatment, and incidence of complications. Results There was no significant difference in the success rate of treatment between the two groups. The catheter group had significantly shorter mean time of operation and mean hospital stay than the minimally invasive group （P〈0.05）, but the minimally invasive group had a significantly lower treatment cost （P〈0.05）. There was no significant difference in the incidence of complications between the two groups （P〉0.05）. Conclusion Transcatheter closure of ASD and minimally invasive closure of ASD have good therapeutic effects in the treatment of ASD. The two treatment regimens have certain advantages and disadvantages, so they should be adopted according to the patient＇s condition.