This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Visconti, K. J. Articles by Bellinger, D. C. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Visconti, K. J. Articles by Bellinger, D. C. Related Collections Catheter-based coronary and valvular interventions: other CV surgery: coronary artery disease Pediatric and congenital heart disease, including cardiovascular surgery

(Circulation. 1999;100:II-145.)
© 1999 American Heart Association, Inc.

Surgery for Congenital Heart Disease

Developmental Outcome After Surgical Versus Interventional Closure of Secundum Atrial Septal Defect in Children

Karen J. Visconti, MA; David P. Bichell, MD; Richard A. Jonas, MD; Jane W. Newburger, MD, MPH; David C. Bellinger, PhD, MSc

From the Departments of Cardiac Surgery (K.J.V., D.P.B., R.A.J.), Cardiology (J.W.N.), and Neurology (D.C.B.), Children’s Hospital, Boston, Mass; and Departments of Neurology (D.C.B), Pediatrics (J.W.N.), and Surgery (D.P.B., R.A.J.), Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass.

Correspondence to David C. Bellinger, PhD, Neuroepidemiology Unit, CA-503, Children’s Hospital, 300 Longwood Ave, Boston, MA 02115. E-mail bellinger{at}a1.tch.harvard.edu

Background—The assessment of the impact of cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) on developmental outcomes in children who undergo open heart surgery is hampered by the absence of a suitable comparison group. The development of interventional catheterization techniques for the repair of certain types of congenital heart lesions provides the opportunity to study children who have not been exposed to CPB.

Methods and Results—We performed standardized neuropsychological testing on children after closure of a secundum atrial septal defect through the use of surgery (n=26) or a transcatheter device (n=19). Device patients, compared with surgical patients, were similar in age at defect closure (mean, 6 years) but older at follow-up testing (12.3 versus 10.6 years). The mean weight percentile at closure was greater and the defect size was smaller in the device patients. Families of device patients tended to have a higher parent IQ, higher level of maternal education, and higher level of maternal occupation. In general, however, children’s IQ and achievement scores were in the normal range for both groups. In regression analyses with adjustment for age at testing and parent IQ, surgical repair was associated with a 9.5-point deficit in Full-Scale IQ (P=0.03) and a 9.7-point deficit in Performance IQ (P=0.05). Block Design was the IQ subtest on which treatment groups differed the most (P=0.01). Surgical patients achieved significantly better scores on errors of commission (P=0.05) and attentiveness index (P=0.03) on a continuous performance test of attention. Scores on tests of achievement and other neuropsychological domains did not differ significantly between the groups. Regression analyses within the surgical group failed to identify significant CPB-related risk factors.

Conclusions—A prospective randomized trial or a study that includes prerepair and postrepair assessments is necessary to establish whether the observed advantages of device closure in neuropsychological outcome represent deleterious effects of CPB or a methodological artifact.

Key Words: heart diseases • heart defects, congenital • cardiopulmonary bypass • pediatrics