ArticlePediatric cardiology2025
Comparison of Long-Term Clinical Outcomes and Costs Between Transesophageal Echocardiography-Guided and X-ray-Guided Percutaneous Atrial Septal Defect Closure in Children.
Article in Pediatric cardiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Percutaneous Zero-fluoroscopy Atrial Septal Defect ClosureCurrent cardiology reviews · 2026Pooled it
- Emergency Bedside Transoesophageal Echocardiography-guided Atrial Septal Defect Closure Without Fluoroscopy after Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation.Interventional cardiology (London, England) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study aimed to compare the long-term clinical outcomes and costs between using either transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) or X-ray fluoroscopy for Percutaneous atrial septal defect (ASD) closure in children. An analysis was conducted on clinical data from children undergoing TEE-guided (n = 168) and X-ray-guided (n = 139) percutaneous ASD closure. Demographic characteristics, technical indices, acute complications, follow-up outcomes, and costs were compared between the groups. The results are that TEE-guided closure demonstrated shorter surgical times (20.3 ± 7.6 min vs. 32.8 ± 7.9 min, P < 0.001) and lower procedural costs ($3093.3 ± 451.5 vs. $3589.1 ± 219.4, P < 0.001) compared to X-ray guidance. Initial successful closure rates were similar between the groups (TEE: 98.2%, XR: 97.1%, P = 0.691). TEE guidance also resulted in fewer acute complications and reduced radiation exposure. TEE-guided percutaneous ASD closure offers advantages in terms of shorter surgical times, lower procedural costs, and reduced radiation exposure compared to X-ray guidance. These findings support the preference for TEE guidance in pediatric ASD closure procedures, with potential implications for improving patient outcomes and reducing healthcare costs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38880798What 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.