Comparison of a Novel Occluder Versus Traditional Occluder in Atrial Septal Defect: A Randomized Trial

Background Traditional occluders for atrial septal defect have 2 drawbacks: incomplete endothelialization and difficulty in achieving atrial septum puncture post implantation. The novel occluder ReAces was designed to address these 2 clinical pain points. In this study, we aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of ReAces with a traditional Amplatzer‐like atrial septal defect occluder. Methods This was a multicenter, randomized, parallel‐controlled, noninferiority clinical trial. Patients with atrial septal defects were enrolled and randomly implanted with a ReAces or a traditional Amplatzer‐like occluder. The primary outcome was complete closure rate at 12 months post implantation. The Migraine Disability Assessment scores before and after the procedure were recorded. Results Sixty‐two patients were implanted with ReAces and 64 patients with a traditional occluder. At the 12‐month follow‐up, complete closure was achieved in 61 patients in the trial group (98.4%) and 63 patients in the control group (98.4%), which demonstrated noninferiority (95% CI, −4.4% to 4.3%). No severe adverse events occurred during 12 months of follow‐up except a case of device dislodgement in the trial group. The thickness of the central region of ReAces at the 12‐month follow‐up was significantly lower than that of the traditional device (6.8±3.7 mm versus 12.2±5.2, P <0.0001). The trial group showed a significantly lower Migraine Disability Assessment score (0.4±2.4 versus 1.4±4.1, P =0.042) and a lower proportion of patients with a nonzero Migraine Disability Assessment score (5.6% versus 18.2%, P =0.042) at the 1‐month follow‐up. Conclusions The efficacy of ReAces was noninferior to that of a traditional Amplatzer‐like occluder for transcatheter atrial septal defect closure. ReAces had a thinner central region during the follow‐up and a lower Migraine Disability Assessment score at the 1‐month follow‐up. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT05371366.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of the American Heart Association
Published
2026-09-18
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1161/jaha.125.045052
Primary Topic
Cardiovascular and Diving-Related Complications
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
article

Comparison of a Novel Occluder Versus Traditional Occluder in Atrial Septal Defect: A Randomized Trial

Wenzhi Pan, Daxin Zhou, Caojin Zhang, Donghui Zhang et al.
Journal of the American Heart Association
Cardiovascular and Diving-Related Complications
article

Comparison of a Novel Occluder Versus Traditional Occluder in Atrial Septal Defect: A Randomized Trial

Wenzhi Pan, Daxin Zhou, Caojin Zhang, Donghui Zhang, Zhihui Zhang, Junbo Ge, Zhenfei Fang, Yanxing Fang, Mingfei Li, Haitao Liu
article en

Abstract

Background Traditional occluders for atrial septal defect have 2 drawbacks: incomplete endothelialization and difficulty in achieving atrial septum puncture post implantation. The novel occluder ReAces was designed to address these 2 clinical pain points. In this study, we aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of ReAces with a traditional Amplatzer‐like atrial septal defect occluder. Methods This was a multicenter, randomized, parallel‐controlled, noninferiority clinical trial. Patients with atrial septal defects were enrolled and randomly implanted with a ReAces or a traditional Amplatzer‐like occluder. The primary outcome was complete closure rate at 12 months post implantation. The Migraine Disability Assessment scores before and after the procedure were recorded. Results Sixty‐two patients were implanted with ReAces and 64 patients with a traditional occluder. At the 12‐month follow‐up, complete closure was achieved in 61 patients in the trial group (98.4%) and 63 patients in the control group (98.4%), which demonstrated noninferiority (95% CI, −4.4% to 4.3%). No severe adverse events occurred during 12 months of follow‐up except a case of device dislodgement in the trial group. The thickness of the central region of ReAces at the 12‐month follow‐up was significantly lower than that of the traditional device (6.8±3.7 mm versus 12.2±5.2, P <0.0001). The trial group showed a significantly lower Migraine Disability Assessment score (0.4±2.4 versus 1.4±4.1, P =0.042) and a lower proportion of patients with a nonzero Migraine Disability Assessment score (5.6% versus 18.2%, P =0.042) at the 1‐month follow‐up. Conclusions The efficacy of ReAces was noninferior to that of a traditional Amplatzer‐like occluder for transcatheter atrial septal defect closure. ReAces had a thinner central region during the follow‐up and a lower Migraine Disability Assessment score at the 1‐month follow‐up. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT05371366.

Journal of the American Heart Association
Central South University (CN), Army Medical University (CN), Harbin Medical University (CN), Sun Yat-sen University (CN), Fudan University (CN), National Clinical Research (US), Zhongshan Hospital (CN), The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University (CN), Southwest Hospital (CN), Second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University (CN), Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences (CN), Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University (CN), Xijing Hospital (CN), Air Force Medical University (CN)
Openalex Percentile: Top 11%
Cardiovascular and Diving-Related Complications
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.