Pediatric Cardiology

, Volume 26, Issue 3, pp 241–249 | Cite as

Catheter Interventions for Congenital Heart Disease in Third World Countries

  • R. Krishna KumarEmail author
  • M.J. Tynan


The term “Third World” loosely encompasses a group of middle- and low-income countries. Considerable differences exist in health care delivery and health indices among these countries. The vast majority of children in the Third World do not have health insurance for congential heart disease (CHD). Catheter interventions for CHD are expensive because of installation costs of expensive biplane equipment, the requirement of dedicated personnel, and the need to stock a large inventory of expensive hardware. As a result, many catheter intervention procedures are beyond the reach of the average patient in the developing world. The following cost-effective strategies have evolved in selected institutions that have attempted to perform catheter interventions for CHD at an affordable cost: sharing of space, equipment, and support personnel with a busy adult cardiology program; use of single plane equipment; the development of sedation protocols to reduce the need for anesthesiologists; strategies to reduce procedure time; reuse of hardware through ethylene oxide sterilization; improvisations to use adult hardware items for CHD interventions; judicious case selection; and improvised alternatives to occlusive devices. These strategies may help reduce costs and allow a larger proportion of patients in developing countries with CHD to undergo interventions. However, the safety of these strategies and the cost savings need to be carefully evaluated prospectively.


Developing countries Cost-effective medicine Cardiac catherterization 


  1. 1.
    Anil, SR, Kannan, BRJ, Kumar, RK 2003Transcatheter closure of native pulmonary artery for elimination of accessory pulmonary blood flow after bidirectional Glenn shuntInd Heart J55373375Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anil, SR, Sivakumar, K, Kumar, RK 2002Bioptome assisted closure of coronary artery fistulaInd Heart J54189192Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Anil, SR, Sivakumar, K, Kumar, RK 2002Coil occlusion of the small patent ductus arteriosus without arterial accessCardiol Young125156PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bashore, TM, Bates, ER, Morton, KJ,  et al. 2001ACC/SCA & I clinical expert consensus document on catheterization laboratory standardsJ Am Coll Cardiol3721702214CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Calvert, P, Calvert, S 2001Politics and Society in the Third World2LongmanLondon34Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Druce, JD, Russell, JS, Birch, CJ,  et al. 2003A decontamination and sterilization protocol employed during reuse of cardiac electrophysiology catheters inactivates human immunodeficiency virusInfect Control Hosp Epidemiol24184190PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ferrell, M, Wolf, CE,2nd, Ellenbogen, KA,  et al. 1997Ethylene oxide on electrophysiology catheters following resterilization: implications for catheter reuseAm J Cardiol8015581561Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Frank, U, Herz, L, Daschner, FD 1988Infection risk of cardiac catheterization and arterial angiography with single and multiple use disposable cathetersClin Cardiol1785787Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Frank RW, Chasin BH (1995) Kerala state: a social justice model Multinat Monitor []Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Grabsch, EA, Grayson, ML, Johnson, PD,  et al. 2002Bactericidal efficacy of sterilizing protocol for reused cardiac electrophysiology cathetersAm J Cardiol89770772Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Grifka, RG, Jones, TK 2000Transcatheter closure of large PDA using 0.052 inch Gianturco coils: controlled delivery using a bioptome catheter through a 4 French sheathCathet Cardiovasc Interv49301306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kumar, RK, Anil, SR, Philip, A, Sivakumar, K 2004Bioptome-assisted coil occlusion of moderate-large patent arterial ducts in infants and small childrenCathet Cardiovasc Interv62266271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kumar, RK Krishnan, MN Venugopal, K Anil, SR Sivakumar2004Bioptome-assisted simultaneous delivery of multiple coils for closure of the large PDACathet Cardiovasc Interv5495100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ma, N, Petit, A, Huk, OL, Yahia, L, Tabrizian, M 2003Safety issue of resterilization of polyurethane electrophysiology catheters: a cytotoxicity studyBiomater Sci Polym Ed14213226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Magee, AG Huggon, IC Seed, PT Qureshi, SA Tynan, M Association for European Cardiology2001Transcatheter coil occlusion of the arterial duct; results of the European RegistryEur Heart J2218171821CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    McMahon, CJ, Eidem, BW, Bezold, LI,  et al. 2003Is cardiac catheterization a prerequisite in all patients undergoing bidirectional cavopulmonary anastomosis?J Am Soc Echocardiogr1610681072CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    National Family Health Survey (1998–1999) [http://www.nfhsin_dia. org]
  18. 18.
    Saran, R 2004India’s best and worst statesIndia Today292233Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Satish, OS, Raghu, C, Lakshmi, V, Rao, DS 1999Routine screening for HIV and hepatitis B in patients undergoing cardiac catheterisation: the need to make it mandatoryInd Heart J51285288Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shaw, JP, Eisenberg, MJ, Azoulay, A, Nguyen, N 1999Reuse of catheters for percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty: effects on procedure time and clinical outcomesCathet Cardiovasc Interv485460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sivakumar, K, Anil, SR, Ravichandra, M,  et al. 2001Emergency transcatheter recanalization of acutely thrombosed Blalock–Taussig shuntsInd Heart J53743748Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Amrita Institute of Medical SciencesKochiIndia
  2. 2.King’s CollegeLondonEngland UK

Personalised recommendations