摘要目的：总结经皮室间隔缺损（VSD）介入治疗失败患儿情况，分析介入治疗失败原因。方法收集2009年6月至2013年9月广东省人民医院1280例行 VSD 介入治疗的患儿（年龄13~141个月）资料，其中封堵成功1237例，失败43例（3.36%）。研究失败病例的心脏彩超、造影资料、介入操作方法及外科手术所见，分析介入失败原因。结果43例介入治疗失败患儿中男25例，女18例；年龄13~141（43.0±31.9）个月；体质量10~35（16.30±5.59）kg。失败原因：6例介入治疗前 B 超将干下型 VSD 误诊为膜周型或嵴内型 VSD；13例选择封堵器过小，比较3种测量 VSD 大小的方法显示不同测量方法对 VSD 大小有影响（F ＝19.134，P ＝0.001），B 超所测 VSD 大小[（6.48±1.43）mm]与外科所见 VSD 大小[（7.02±1.08）mm]比较差异无统计学意义（t ＝1.42，P ＝0.168），B 超所测 VSD 大小与左心室造影所见[（4.78±1.11）mm]比较差异有统计学意义（t ＝4.50，P ＝0.001），左心室造影所见与外科所见 VSD 大小比较差异亦有统计学意义（t ＝5.92，P ＝0.001）。14例封堵器左盘伞影响主动脉瓣出现主动脉瓣反流；3例出现房室传导阻滞或左束支阻滞；2例出现三尖瓣狭窄；5例为膜部瘤样 VSD 伴多股分流，封堵器植入后出现残余分流。结论 B 超诊断应避免将干下型 VSD 误诊为膜周型或嵴内型 VSD。伴主动脉瓣脱垂的病例应参考彩色超声所测 VSD 大小来选择封堵器。毗邻主动脉瓣的 VSD，应选择合适的封堵器及改进操作手法避免影响主动脉瓣。

abstractsObjective To analyze the causes of failed transcatheter closure for ventricular septal defects (VSD)in children. Methods One thousand two hundred and eighty children aged 13 to 141 months who underwent transcatheter closure from June 2009 to September 2013 in Guangdong General Hospital were selected. There were 43 failures(3. 36% ). The clinical data including transthoracic echocardiograph( TTE),radiography,interventional ap-proach and surgical findings were analyzed. Results Forty - three patients included 25 male and 18 female. The pa-tients' ages ranged from 13 to 141(43. 0 ± 31. 9)months and their weight ranged from 10 to 35(16. 3 ± 5. 59)kg. The causes of failure including doubly committed subarterial VSD misdiagnosed as perimembranous VSD(PMVSD)or intracristal VSD were in 6 patients. The size of occluder was too small in 13 cases,and there were statistical differences between three measurements of size of VSD(F = 19. 134,P = 0. 001). The size of VSD measured by left ventricular an-giography was significantly smaller than that measured by TTE,and there was statistical difference[(4. 78 ± 1. 11) mm vs(6. 48 ± 1. 43)mm,t = 4. 50,P = 0. 001]. The dimension of VSD measured by left ventricular angiography was significantly smaller than that measured by surgical findings,and there was statistical difference[(4. 78 ± 1. 11) mm vs(7. 02 ± 1. 08)mm,t = 5. 92,P = 0. 001]. But,the size of VSD measured by TTE had no significant difference compared with that measured by surgical findings(t = 1. 42,P = 0. 168). Aortic regurgitation occurred in 14 cases;atrioventricular block or left bundle branch block in 3 patients;tricuspid stenosis in 2 cases and residual shunt in 5 pa-tients. Conclusions Doubly committed subarterial VSD may be misdiagnosed as PMVSD or intracristal VSD. In the ca-ses of VSD concomitant with aortic valve prolapse,size of the occluders should be referred to VSD dimensions measured by TTE. In the cases of VSD adjacent to aortic valve,suitable occluders should be selected and operation technique should be improved to avoid aortic regurgitation.