ArticleJACC. Asia2026
Impact of Device Position and Aortic Valve Prolapse on Outcomes After Transcatheter VSD Closure.
Article in JACC. Asia, 2026. 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.
- The Paradox of Aortic Valve Prolapse in Transcatheter Closure of Ventricular Septal Defects.JACC. Asia · 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
backgroundTranscatheter closure of ventricular septal defect (VSD) is a promising alternative to surgery; however, outcomes in patients with coexisting aortic valve prolapse (AVP) remain limited.
objectivesThe authors aimed to evaluate outcomes and risk factors after VSD closure using the KONAR-MF Occluder (MFO) in a large Asian cohort with a high prevalence of AVP.
methodsBetween 2021 and 2024, consecutive patients undergoing transcatheter VSD closure at our institution using only the MFO were enrolled. Right coronary cusp (RCC) prolapse was quantified using the RCC prolapse index on transesophageal echocardiography. Device position relative to the aortic cusp was classified as nontouching, clamping, or holding. Risk factors for procedural failure and progression of aortic regurgitation (AR) were analyzed.
resultsAmong 109 cases (13.8%, 15 of 109 doubly committed [Dc] type), 61.5% (67 of 109) had AVP. The procedural success rate was 94.5% (103 of 109; 95% CI: 88.4%-98.0%). Younger age, Dc VSD, aortic rim deficiency, and larger defect size were univariate correlates of failure, whereas RCC prolapse index was the only independent predictor in multivariate analysis (OR: 2.48; 95% CI: 1.06-5.83 per 10% increase; P = 0.037). During a median (IQR) follow-up of 14.3 (8.4-22.8) months, AR progression occurred in 7 (6.8%) patients. Device clamping of the aortic cusp was associated with AR progression (OR: 6.67; 95% CI: 1.10-58.1; P = 0.048).
conclusionsVSD closure using the MFO is safe and effective, including in patients with outlet-type VSD and AVP. Significant RCC prolapse predicts procedural failure, and clamping of the aortic cusp may compromise long-term valve function.
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.