Observational studyInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022
Favourable Short- to Mid-Term Outcome after PDA-Stenting in Duct-Dependent Pulmonary Circulation.
Observational study in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Current Status of Patent Ductus Arteriosus Stenting: An International Practice Based Study.Pediatric cardiology · 2026Article
- Computational Model for Predicting Optimal Clinical Intervention in Pre-Operative Neonates with Transposition of the Great Arteries.Cardiovascular engineering and technology · 2026Article
- Comparing flow and pulmonary artery growth post-patent ductus arteriosus stenting in patients with ductal-dependent pulmonary flow using 4D magnetic resonance imaging.European heart journal. Imaging methods and practice · 2024Article
- Patent Ductus Arteriosus Stenting via Percutaneous Common Carotid Artery Access for Ductus Dependent Pulmonary Blood Flow in Newborns and Infants: Experience in Latvia.Acta medica Lituanic · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStenting of patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) is a minimally invasive catheter-based temporary palliative procedure that is an alternative to a surgical shunt in neonates with duct-dependent pulmonary perfusion.
methodsAn observational, single-centre, cross-sectional study of patients with duct-dependent pulmonary perfusion undergoing PDA-stenting as a stage I procedure and an analysis of short- to mid-term follow-up until a subsequent surgical procedure (stage II), with a focus on the interstage course.
resultsTwenty-six patients were treated with PDA-stenting at a median (IQR) age of 7 (4-10) days; 10/26 patients (38.5%) (6/10 single pulmonary perfusion) were intended for later univentricular palliation, 16/26 patients (61.5%) (13/16 single pulmonary perfusion) for biventricular repair. PDA diameter was 2.7 (1.8-3.2) mm, stent diameter 3.5 (3.5-4.0) mm. Immediate procedural success was 88.5%. The procedure was aborted, switching to immediate surgery after stent embolisation, malposition or pulmonary coarctation in three patients (each n = 1). During mid-term follow-up, one patient needed an additional surgical shunt due to severe cyanosis, while five patients underwent successful catheter re-intervention 27 (17-30) days after PDA-stenting due to pulmonary hypo- (
conclusionsPDA-stenting is a feasible, safe treatment option, with the need for interdisciplinary decision-making beforehand and surgical backup afterwards. It allows adequate body and pulmonary vessel growth for subsequent surgical procedures. Factors determining the individual patient's course should be identified in larger prospective studies.
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.