SynthesisCurrent cardiology reviews2026
Percutaneous Zero-fluoroscopy Atrial Septal Defect Closure
Synthesis in Current cardiology reviews, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Contemporary Imaging Modalities for Transcatheter Interatrial Communication Closure: A Comparative Meta-Analysis of Intracardiac and Transesophageal Echocardiography.Echocardiography (Mount Kisco, N.Y.) · 2026Pooled it
- Case Report: Zero-fluoroscopy retrograde transcatheter closure of a ruptured Sinus of valsalva guided by transesophageal echocardiography.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Combined intracardiac echocardiography and pressure-sensing catheter for complex PFO closure: a case report.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPercutaneous atrial septal defects (ASD) closure with fluoroscopy guidance is the standard procedure. However, fluoroscopy poses stochastic and deterministic risks for small infants and children. Zero fluoroscopy ASD closure is an alternative, yet its feasibility and safety compared to fluoroscopy remain unclear. Therefore, this study compares outcomes using standardized fluoroscopy and zero fluoroscopy methods for transcatheter ASD closure.
methodsFour databases (PubMed, ProQuest, Google Scholar, Wiley) were used to search literature published before July 2023. The main results were the success rate and the complications. Outcomes were processed using the DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model of proportional meta-analysis to determine the overall proportion.
resultsA total of 68 cohort studies (8,989 patients) were included in this meta-analysis. Overall, percutaneous ASD closure was successfully performed in 97% of patients (95%CI: 96-98%) based on 59 studies (8,989 patients), of which fluoroscopy accounted for 97% (95%CI: 96- 98%) based on 51 studies (7,760 patients) and non-fluoroscopy for 98% (95%CI: 96-100%)] based on 8 studies (1,229 patients). Device embolization, AV block, and other arrhythmias did not differ significantly between the two groups. However, the percentage difference in residual leaks between the two groups was quite vast, with 5% in the non-fluoroscopy group and 12% in the fluoroscopy group.
conclusionPercutaneous ASD closure with zero fluoroscopy is safe and effective, as evidenced by the high success rate, and is non-inferior to the standardized fluoroscopy method.
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.