SynthesisCardiology journal2020
Comparison of Figulla Flex® and Amplatzer™ devices for atrial septal defect closure: A meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Cardiology journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Long-term follow-up results of percutaneous closure of atrial septal defect with a novel biodegradable poly-L-lactic acid device in pediatrics: data from a prospective, single-center trial.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAtrial septal defect (ASD) is one of the most common congenital heart diseases. Percutaneous closure is the preferred treatment, but certain complications remain a concern. The most common devices are AMPLATZER™ (ASO) (St. Jude Medical, St. Paul, MN, USA) and Figulla Flex® septal occluders (FSO) (Occlutech GmbH, Jena, Germany). The present study aimed to assess main differences in outcomes.
methodsA systematic search in Pubmed and Google scholarship was performed by two independent reviewers for any study comparing ASO and FSO. Searched terms were "Figulla", "Amplatzer", and "atrial septal defect". A random-effects model was used.
resultsA total of 11 studies including 1770 patients (897 ASO; 873 FSO) were gathered. Baseline clinical and echocardiographic characteristics were comparable although septal aneurysm was more often reported in patients treated with ASO (32% vs. 25%; p = 0.061). Success rate (94% vs. 95%; OR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.38-1.71; p = 0.58) and peri-procedural complications were comparable. Procedures were shorter, requiring less fluoroscopy time with an FSO device (OR: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.20-0.97; p = 0.003). Although the global rate of complications in long-term was similar, the ASO device was associated with a higher rate of supraventricular arrhythmias (14.7% vs. 7.8%, p = 0.009).
conclusionsPercutaneous closure of ASD is a safe and effective, irrespective of the type of device. No differences exist regarding procedural success between the ASO and FSO devices but the last was associated to shorter procedure time, less radiation, and lower rate of supraventricular arrhythmias in follow-up. Late cardiac perforation did not occur and death in the follow-up was exceptional.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.