Key result
3D-intracardiac echocardiography for left atrial appendage occlusion resulted in similar procedural success and sealing compared to 2D-ICE (98.1% vs 97.3%; P=0.99).
Why the study?
Left atrial appendage imaging is critical during percutaneous occlusion, and 3D-ICE enables direct visualization from multiple cross-sectional planes simultaneously.
Does 3D-ICE guidance improve procedural success and LAA sealing compared to 2D-ICE in patients undergoing left atrial appendage occlusion?
Observational (n=274)
Does 3D-ICE guidance improve procedural success and LAA sealing compared to 2D-ICE in patients undergoing left atrial appendage occlusion?
Absolute Event Rate: 98.1% vs 97.3%
p-value: p=0.99
3D-ICE provides superior device size selection agreement compared to 2D-ICE during LAA occlusion, though overall procedural success remains similarly high.
3D-ICE was associated with better device sizing agreement but similar success; leaves open whether randomized trials would confirm clinical benefit in LAA occlusion.
AIMS: Left atrial appendage (LAA) imaging is critical during percutaneous occlusion procedures. 3D-intracardiac echocardiography (ICE) features direct visualization of LAA from multiple cross-sectional planes at a time. We aimed at reporting procedural success of 3D-ICE-guided LAA occlusion and the correlation between pre-procedural transoesophageal echocardiography (TEE) and intraprocedural 3D-ICE for LAA sizing. METHODS AND RESULTS: Among 274 patients undergoing left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) with a Watchman FLX, periprocedural ICE guidance was achieved via a commercially available 2D-ICE catheter (220 patients) or a novel (NUVISION™) 3D-ICE one (54 patients). Primary endpoint was a composite of procedural success and LAA sealing at follow-up TEE. Secondary endpoint was a composite of periprocedural device recapture/resizing plus presence of leaks ≥ 3 mm at follow-up TEE. 3D-ICE measurements of maximum landing zone correlated highly with pre-procedural TEE reference values [Pearson's: 0.94; P < 0.001; bias: -0.06 (-2.39, 2.27)]. The agreement between 3D-ICE-based device selection and final device size was 96.3% vs. 79.1% with 2D-ICE (P = 0.005). The incidence of the primary endpoint was 98.1% with 3D-ICE and 97.3% with 2D-ICE (P = 0.99). 2D-ICE patients had a trend towards a higher incidence of periprocedural device recapture/redeployment (31.5% vs. 44.5%; P = 0.09). The secondary endpoint occurred in 31.5% of 3D-ICE patients vs. 45.9% of 2D-ICE ones (P = 0.065). CONCLUSION: Intracardiac echocardiography-guided LAAO showed a very high success, with no major adverse events. A very high level of agreement for LAA sizing was found between pre-procedural TEE and periprocedural 3D-ICE. 3D-ICE performed significantly better than 2D-ICE for FLX size selection and may provide better guidance during device deployment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rocca et al. (2023) conducted an observational in Left atrial appendage occlusion (n=274). 3D-intracardiac echocardiography (3D-ICE) vs. 2D-intracardiac echocardiography (2D-ICE) was evaluated on Composite of procedural success and LAA sealing at follow-up TEE (p=0.99). 3D-intracardiac echocardiography for left atrial appendage occlusion resulted in similar procedural success and sealing compared to 2D-ICE (98.1% vs 97.3%; P=0.99).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: