ArticleBMC cardiovascular disorders2026
Device closure of a small atrial septal defect with an unusual set of post-operative complications.
Article in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPercutaneous closure of secundum atrial septal defects (ASDs) is a standard procedure. However, it is not without risk, and complications can be severe even in apparently straightforward cases. CASE PRESENTATION: A 19-year-old male (80 kg, 170 cm), with a history of infantile strabismus, underwent percutaneous closure of a small (11 × 12 mm) secundum ASD with adequate rims using an 18 mm Occlutech septal occluder.The procedure was performed under general anesthesia and transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) guidance, and the device initially appeared well positioned. The following day, routine transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) failed to visualize the device, and a diagnostic error led to the device’s location being misinterpreted as a pulmonary artery on fluoroscopy. Emergency surgery was performed to remove the device and close the defect, but the device was not found. Post-operatively, real-time 3D Computed Tomography (CT) located the device in the aortic arch. It was subsequently retrieved percutaneously. During extubation, the patient developed agitation and confusion, and a cranial CT revealed a right posterior cerebral artery infarction, resulting in left homonymous hemianopsia. Follow-up neurological assessment and MRI confirmed the ischemic sequelae. Interestingly, the patient’s pre-existing strabismus completely resolved. The potential etiology of the cerebral ischemic event includes thromboembolism from the device or catheter manipulation.
conclusionsThis case highlights that severe complications, including device embolization to unexpected systemic locations and subsequent cerebrovascular events, can occur even in low-risk ASD closures. It underscores the critical importance of meticulous, multi-view intra procedural and post-procedural imaging to prevent diagnostic errors. The unexpected resolution of strabismus following a posterior cerebral artery infarct suggests a complex neuro-ophthalmological phenomenon requiring further investigation.
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.