CAM 70161

Transcatheter Closure of Patent Ductus Arteriosus

Category:Surgery   Last Reviewed:October 2018
Department(s):Medical Affairs   Next Review:October 2999
Original Date:November 1997    

Description:
The ductus arteriosus is the vascular remnant of the left sixth aortic arch, connecting the main pulmonary artery to the aorta. A patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) is the persistent opening of the channel beyond its expected time of closure during the first few days of life. Catheter-based techniques have been developed to close PDAs to eliminate the need for general anesthesia, a thoracotomy and an extended hospital stay and convalescence associated with open surgical PDA closure.

Background 
The ductus arteriosus is the vascular remnant of the left sixth aortic arch, connecting the main pulmonary artery to the aorta. A patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) is the persistent opening of the channel beyond its expected time of closure during the first few days of life. Symptoms are related to the size of the ductus; a large nonrestrictive ductus with a left to right shunt can cause cardiac failure, while small restrictive PDAs are associated with an increased risk of infective endarteritis. Because of the twin threats of heart failure or endarteritis, it is recommended that all PDAs that persist after the age of 2 years be surgically closed with ligation or division of the PDA.

Open surgical treatment of the PDA is a low-risk procedure, if performed electively. However, over the past several decades, there has been interest in developing a catheter-based technique to close PDAs, thus eliminating the need for general anesthesia, a thoracotomy and an extended hospital stay and convalescence. A number of devices have been developed for this purpose. 

The Gianturco coil, also referred to as the Cook embolization coil, is an arterial and venous occlusive device that was marketed prior to 1976, when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) formally acquired regulatory authority over devices. (The Gianturco coil is entirely different from the Gianturco stent, which is used in coronary arteries.) Therefore, the Gianturco device has never undergone formal FDA approval, but is available for clinical use. Transcatheter insertion of the coil is typically an outpatient procedure performed in the catheterization lab. General anesthesia may only be required in those very young patients who cannot reliably hold still during the procedure. General anesthesia in a child younger than 1 year old may require overnight hospitalization. 

Regulatory Status
In 2003, the Amplatzer Duct Occluder (St Jude Medical®, St. Paul, MN) received FDA approval, with the specific indication for nonsurgical closure of patent ductus arteriosus. This device is a self-expandable device made from a Nitinol wire mesh and polyester fabric. As the occluder is implanted, it expands outward, and the wires push against the wall of the ductus. The polyester fabric induces thrombosis, which closes the communication.

The Nit-Occlud® PDA device (PFM Medical, Carlsbad, CA) received premarket approval (PMA) approval from the FDA in August 2013. The device is indicated for small- to medium-sized PDAs with an angiographic diameter of less than 4 mm.

Policy:
Transcatheter closure of a patent ductus arteriosus using an FDA-approved device may be considered MEDICALLY NECESSARY.

Transcatheter closure of a patent ductus arteriosus using other non–FDA-approved devices is considered INVESTIGATIONAL. 

Policy Guidelines
According to the labeled indications of the Amplatzer Duct Occluder, the following are contraindications for the use of this device:

  • Patients weighing less than 6 kg
  • Patients less than 6 months of age
  • Presence of thrombus at the intended site of implant, or documented evidence of venous thrombus in the vessels through which access to the defect is gained
  • Active endocarditis or other infections producing bacteremia
  • Patients whose vasculature, through which access to the defect is gained, is inadequate to accommodate the appropriate sheath size
  • Patients with pulmonary hypertension with pulmonary vascular resistance of >8 Woods units or Rp/Rs of >0.4.

Effective in 2014, there is a specific CPT code for this procedure:

93582 Percutaneous transcatheter closure of patent ductus arteriosus

Prior to 2014, the following CPT coding might have been used:

37204: Transcatheter occlusion or embolization (e.g., for tumor destruction, to achieve hemostasis, to occlude a vascular malformation), percutaneous, any method, non-central nervous system, non-head or neck. (Describes placement of coil.)

Other components of the procedure should not be billed separately; e.g., CPT code 36140 (introduction of needle or intracatheter, extremity artery) should be considered an integral part of CPT code 37204 and, thus, is not eligible for additional reimbursement.

Alternatively, the procedure may be reported with an unlisted code, such as 93799 (unlisted cardiovascular service or procedure).

Rationale:
Efficacy of Closure Devices for PDA

The Gianturco coil has been successfully adapted for use in closure of PDAs. Studies suggest a success rate of more than 90% in abolishing a clinically detectable shunt. (1, 2) Postoperative angiography and/or Doppler echocardiography frequently detect the persistence of a subclinical or trace shunt. The clinical significance of this finding is thought to be minimal. For example, Latson points out that using the Rashkind device, there have been no late cases of infection in more than 1,800 patient years of follow-up in postimplantation patients who have had no clinical evidence of a residual shunt. (3)

One nonrandomized comparative trial compared percutaneous closure to open surgery. In this study from China, Chen et al. (4) compared 72 patients treated with percutaneous closure with 183 patients treated with open surgery. The choice of procedure was made at the discretion of the patient and/or treating physician. There were more procedure-related events in the open surgery group compared to the percutaneous group (13.7% vs.1.4%, p=0.004), and recovery time was longer for the open surgery group (8.7 days vs. 1.3 days, p<0.001). Freedom from persistent residual shunt was higher in the percutaneous group (98.6% vs. 91.3%, p=0.04). Other clinical outcomes, such as pulmonary arterial hypertension and left ventricular size, were similar between groups.

Other evidence on the efficacy of closure devices consists of case series. A large case series of 1,291 attempted PDA coil occlusions was reported from the European Paediatric Cardiology Registry. (5) Immediate occlusion was demonstrated in 59% of patients, and this increased to 95% 1 year after the procedure. A suboptimal outcome occurred in 10% of patients, defined as failure to implant, coil embolization, residual leak, hemolysis, duct recanalization and flow impairment to adjacent structures. Increasing size of the PDA greater than 2 mm and PDAs that were tubular in shape were associated with an increased likelihood of unfavorable outcome.

In 2003, the Amplatzer Duct Occluder device received FDA approval for closure of PDA. (6) The clinical data submitted to the FDA as part of the FDA approval process consisted of results from a multi-center nonrandomized pivotal study that enrolled 441 patients. The primary efficacy measure was complete closure and was achieved in greater than 98.6% of patients at 12 months. A total of 1.3% of patients were reported to have serious or major adverse events, and 4.8% were reported to have a minor adverse event.

The Multicenter USA Amplatzer patent ductus arteriosus device trial (7) reported periprocedural and 1-year outcomes in 484 patients from 25 U.S. centers. Of the 484 patients enrolled, the Amplatzer device implantation was not attempted in 45, due to the size of the PDA or that the morphology of the PDA was more suited for treatment with a coil. Of the 439 patients in whom implantation was attempted, the device was successfully implanted in 435 patients (99%). Immediate postprocedure occlusion was reported in 76% of patients, which increased to 89% on postprocedure day 1 and to 99% at 1 year. At last evaluation, PDA occlusion was documented in 98% of patients. At 1-year follow-up, 359/360 (99.7%) evaluable patients have no evidence of a left to right shunt on echocardiography. Complications were uncommon, with one periprocedural death and major events reported in 2.3% (10/439) of patients. Examples of major events included device embolization (n=2), partial obstruction of the pulmonary artery (n=2) and bleeding requiring transfusion (n=2). Minor events occurred in 7.1% (31/439) of patients.

Other case series of both the Amplatzer device and the Gianturco coils report similar outcomes. (8-13) These series vary in terms of patient selection, types of device and outcomes reported. However, the case series are consistent in reporting a high rate of procedural success, a high rate of successful closure of the PDA and a low rate of serious complications.

Comparative efficacy of different devices and/or different techniques

Wang et al. (14) compared outcomes among 214 patients undergoing percutaneous closure with coils and 134 patients undergoing closure by an occluder device. Patients were selected for either group by the size of the PDA, with coils utilized for small to moderate PDAs and the occluder device utilized for larger PDAs. The procedural success rate was high for both the coils (96.7%) and the occluder (98.5%), with no significant difference between groups. There were higher complication rates reported for the coil group. Distal embolization occurred in 8.9% (19/214) of patients in the coil group compared with 1.5% (2/136) patients in the occluder group (p<0.01). Pulmonary artery stenosis occurred in 4.2% (9/214) of patients in the coil group compared with zero in the occluder group (p<0.05).

In a nonrandomized study, Chen et al. compared PDA occlusion using the transcatheter Amplatzer occluder in 98 patients to video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery in 196 patients. (15) No deaths or late recanalizations occurred in either group. However, residual shunt and left ventricular overload occurred in 4 (4.3%) patients in the transcatheter occluder group compared to zero patients in the thoracoscopic group. Acute complications related to the procedures occurred in 10.2% of the transcatheter occluder group compared to 1.5% of the video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery group (p<0.05). After follow-up of 3.1 to 8 years (mean, 5.4 ± 1.2 years) in the transcatheter occluder group and 3-8 years (mean, 5.6 ± 2.8 years) in the thoracoscopic surgery group, heart structures in both groups returned to normal. While fewer complications occurred in the thoracoscopic group, the nonrandomized nature of the study limits interpretation of the results.

Hongxin and colleagues reported on a parasternal, perpulmonary approach for PDA device closure in a cohort study of 79 patients. (16) Complete PDA occlusion occurred in 61 (78%) patients immediately after device placement while 7 (9%) patients required device redeployment. Complete PDA closure was found by echocardiogram in 76 (97%) patients during the follow-up period of 3 months to 2 years. While this minimally invasive approach is theoretically designed to avoid or reduce the disadvantages of other PDA occlusion procedures and devices, such as the trauma of thoracotomy and risk of transcatheter device embolization, these devices are not available in the United States, and this approach still requires general anesthesia.

A number of nonrandomized studies have compared newer, non-FDA approved occluders with the Amplatzer Duct Occluder device. (17-20) These nonapproved devices were generally targeted toward uses that are off label for the Amplatzer occluder, such as in small infants younger than 6 months of age, or in PDAs that were outside the suggested range of sizes. The devices used in these trials include the Amplatzer Duct Occluder II additional sizes (St Jude Medical®, St. Paul, MN) and the Cardi-O-Fix device (Stairway Medical Technology®, Beijing, CHN).

Ongoing Clinical Trials
A search of online site ClinicalTrials.gov identified 2 ongoing nonrandomized studies of PDA occluders. In a Phase I study, the safety and PDA closure outcomes of a new PDA occluder by Occlutech is being evaluated in 50 patients (NCT01479218). This trial is expected to be completed in January 2014 and is listed as active, not recruiting patients. In the Amplatzer Duct Occluder II (ADOII) study, the safety and PDA closure outcomes of the Amplatzer Duct Occluder II will be evaluated in 192 patients (NCT00713700). This study is ongoing but is no longer recruiting patients and is expected to be completed in July 2016.

Summary
The ductus arteriosus is the vascular remnant of the left sixth aortic arch connecting the main pulmonary artery to the aorta. A patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) is the persistent opening of the channel beyond its expected time of closure during the first few days of life. Catheter-based techniques have been developed to close PDAs to eliminate the need for general anesthesia, a thoracotomy and an extended hospital stay and convalescence associated with open surgical PDA closure.

The use of percutaneous closure devices has become the procedure of choice for closure of patent ductus arteriosus in suitable patients. The evidence base for percutaneous closure of PDAs consists of a large number of case series that report high success rates with low rates of adverse events. A few nonrandomized comparative trials compare outcomes of different devices and techniques, and one such study reports better outcomes with a thoracoscopic approach compared to a percutaneous approach. However, these nonrandomized studies are not adequately rigorous to form conclusions because there is a high likelihood of selection bias, resulting in populations that are not comparable. Based on the evidence that percutaneous closure achieves high success rates and avoids the morbidity of open surgery, this technique may be considered medically necessary.

Practice Guidelines and Position Statements
In 2008 the American College of Cardiology/American Hospital Association (ACC/AHA) published guidelines on the management of adults with congenital heart disease. (21) Class I indications for closure of a PDA were listed as:

  • Left atrial enlargement, left ventricular enlargement, pulmonary arterial hypertension or left-to-right shunt (Level of evidence C) 
  • Prior endarteritis (Level of evidence C)

Class IIa indications for closure of a PDA were:

  • It is reasonable to close an asymptomatic small PDA by catheter device (Level of evidence C)

PDA closure is reasonable for patients

  • Left atrial enlargement, left ventricular enlargement, pulmonary arterial hypertension or left-to-right shunt (Level of evidence C) 
  • Prior endarteritis (Level of evidence C)  

References:

  1. Hijazi ZM, Geggel RL. Results of anterograde transcatheter closure of patent ductus arteriosus using single or multiple Gianturco coils. Am J Cardiol 1994; 74(9):925-9.
  2. Rothman A, Lucas VW, Sklansky MS et al. Percutaneous coil occlusion of patent ductus arteriosus. J Pediatr 1997; 130(3):447-54.
  3. Latson LA. Residual shunts after transcatheter closure of patent ductus arteriosus. A major concern or benign "techno-malady"? Circulation 1991; 84(6):2591-3.
  4. Chen ZY, Wu LM, Luo YK et al. Comparison of long-term clinical outcome between transcatheter Amplatzer occlusion and surgical closure of isolated patent ductus arteriosus. Chin Med J 2009; 122(10):1123-7.
  5. Magee AG, Huggon IC, Seed PT et al. Transcatheter coil occlusion of the arterial duct; results of the European Registry. Eur Heart J 2001; 22(19):1817-21.
  6. McCallum RW, Lin Z, Forster J et al. Gastric electrical stimulation improves outcomes of patients with gastroparesis for up to 10 years. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2011; 9(4):314-19 e1.
  7. Pass RH, Hijazi Z, Hsu DT et al. Multicenter USA Amplatzer patent ductus arteriosus occlusion device trial: initial and one-year results. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004; 44(3):513-9.
  8. Butera G, De Rosa G, Chessa M et al. Transcatheter closure of persistent ductus arteriosus with the Amplatzer duct occluder in very young symptomatic children. Heart 2004; 90(12):1467-70.
  9. Ghasemi A, Pandya S, Reddy SV et al. Trans-catheter closure of patent ductus arteriosus-What is the best device? Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2010; 76(5):687-95.
  10. Masura J, Tittel P, Gavora P et al. Long-term outcome of transcatheter patent ductus arteriosus closure using Amplatzer duct occluders. Am Heart J 2006; 151(3):755 e7-55 e10.
  11. Saliba Z, El-rassi I, Helou D et al. Development of catheter-based treatment of patent ductus arteriosus: a medium-sized centre experience. Arch Cardiovasc Dis 2009; 102(2):111-8.
  12. Wang JK, Wu MH, Hwang JJ et al. Transcatheter closure of moderate to large patent ductus arteriosus with the Amplatzer duct occluder. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2007; 69(4):572-8.
  13. Yang SW, Zhou YJ, Hu DY et al. Feasibility and safety of transcatheter intervention for complex patent ductus arteriosus. Angiology 2010; 61(4):372-6.
  14. Wang JK, Hwang JJ, Chiang FT et al. A strategic approach to transcatheter closure of patent ductus: Gianturco coils for small-to-moderate ductus and Amplatzer duct occluder for large ductus. Int J Cardiol 2006; 106(1):10-5.
  15. Chen H, Weng G, Chen Z et al. Comparison of long-term clinical outcomes and costs between video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery and transcatheter amplatzer occlusion of the patent ductus arteriosus. Pediatr Cardiol 2012; 33(2):316-21.
  16. Hongxin L, Wenbin G, Zhu M et al. New minimally invasive technique of perpulmonary device closure of patent ductus arteriosus through a parasternal approach. Ann Thorac Surg 2012; 93(3):862-8.
  17. Kenny D, Morgan GJ, Bentham JR et al. Early clinical experience with a modified amplatzer ductal occluder for transcatheter arterial duct occlusion in infants and small children. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2013:NA.
  18. Celebi A, Demir IH, Saritas T et al. Cardi-O-Fix duct occluder versus amplatzer duct occluder for closure of patent ductus arteriosus. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2013.
  19. Kumar SM, Subramanian V, Bijulal S et al. Percutaneous Closure of a Moderate to Large Tubular or Elongated Patent Ductus Arteriosus in Children Younger Than 3 Years: Is the ADO II Appropriate? Pediatr Cardiol 2013.
  20. Liddy S, Oslizlok P, Walsh KP. Comparison of the results of transcatheter closure of patent ductus arteriosus with newer amplatzer devices. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2013; 82(2):253-9.
  21. Warnes CA, Williams RG, Bashore TM et al. ACC/AHA 2008 Guidelines for the Management of Adults with Congenital Heart Disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (writing committee to develop guidelines on the management of adults with congenital heart disease). Circulation 2008; 118(23):e714-833.

Coding Section

Codes Number Description
CPT  37204  Transcatheter occlusion or embolization (e.g., for tumor destruction, to achieve hemostasis, to occlude a vascular malformation), percutaneous, any method, non-central nervous system, non–head or neck (code deleted effective 12/31/13)
  93582 

Percutaneous transcatheter closure of patent ductus arteriosus (new code effective 1/1/14) 

ICD-9 Diagnosis 747.0 Patent ductus arteriosus
ICD-9 Procedure 38.85 Other surgical occlusion of vessels; thoracic vessel
HCPCS  No code   
ICD-10-CM (effective 10/01/15) Q25.0 Patent ductus arteriosus
ICD-10-PCS (effective 10/01/15) 02LR3CT Occlusion of Ductus Arteriosus with Extraluminal Device, Percutaneous Approach
  02LR3DT Occlusion of Ductus Ateriosus with Intraluminal Device, Percutaneous Approach
  02LR3ZT Occlusion of Ductus Arteriosus, Percutaneous Approach
  02LR4CT Occlusion of Ductus Arteriosus with Extraluminal Device, Percutaneous Endoscopic Approach
  02LR4DT Occlusion of Ductus Arteriosus with Intraluminal Device, Percutaneous Endoscopic Approach
  02LR4ZT Occlusion of Ductus Arteriosus, Percutaneous Endoscopic Approach
  02LR3CT Restriction of Ductus Arteriosus with Extraluminal Device, Percutaneous Approach
  02VR3DT Restriction of Ductus Arteriosus with Intraluminal Device, Percutaneous Approach
  02VR3ZT Restriction of Ductus Arteriosus, Percutaneous Approach
  02VR4CT

Restriction of Ductus Arteriosus with Extraluminal Device. Percutaneous Endoscopic Approach

  02VR4DT Restriction of Ductus Arteriosus with Intraluminal Device, Percutaneous Endoscopic Approach
  02VR4ZT Restriction of Ductus Arteriosus, Percutaneous Endoscopic Approach
Type of Service Cardiology  
Place of Service Inpatient  

Procedure and diagnosis codes on Medical Policy documents are included only as a general reference tool for each policy. They may not be all-inclusive.

This medical policy was developed through consideration of peer-reviewed medical literature generally recognized by the relevant medical community, U.S. FDA approval status, nationally accepted standards of medical practice and accepted standards of medical practice in this community, Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association technology assessment program (TEC) and other non-affiliated technology evaluation centers, reference to federal regulations, other plan medical policies and accredited national guidelines.

"Current Procedural Terminology© American Medical Association.  All Rights Reserved" 

History From 2014 Forward     

10/23/2018

Annual review, no change to policy intent. 

10/04/2017 

Annual review, no change to policy intent.

10/12/2016 

Annual Review. No change to policy intent.

09/30/2015 

Annual review, no change to policy intent. Updated background, description, guidelines, rationale, references and coding. 

10/01/2014

Annual review. Updated regulatory status, rationale and references. Adding coding section. No change to policy intent.


Go Back