Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-2lccl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T09:43:44.269Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Current management of ventricular septal defect

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 October 2006

Henry M. Sondheimer
Affiliation:
Division of Pediatric Cardiology, The Children's Hospital, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Denver, Colorado, United States of America
Kristy Rahimi-Alangi
Affiliation:
Division of Pediatric Cardiology, The Children's Hospital, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Denver, Colorado, United States of America

Abstract

At this time, the current practice for treatment of patients with isolated ventricular septal defect is infrequently studied. With this in mind, it was our intent to assess the current management of ventricular septal defect at a single center, The Children's Hospital, Denver. We reviewed the practice at this institution to determine if there is an evidence base for when or if a patient with an isolated ventricular septal defect requires surgical repair. With approval from the Colorado Multiple Institutional Review Board (protocol # 06-0097), we reviewed the data on patients with isolated ventricular septal defect seen during the calendar years of 2004 and 2005, determining the state of the patients, and the level of intervention through December 31, 2005.

Type
Miscellaneous Topics
Copyright
© 2006 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Weidman WH, Blount Jr, SG DuShane JW, Gersony WM, Hayes CJ, Nadas AS. Clinical course in ventricular septal defect. Circulation 1977; 56 (Supp 1): I56I69.Google Scholar
Kidd L, Driscoll DJ, Gersony WM, et al. Second Natural History Study of Congenital Heart Defects: Results of treatment of patients with ventricular septal defects. Baltimore, Maryland, Circulation, 1993; 87 (Supp 1): I38I51.Google Scholar