Key result
MDCT sizing of the left atrial appendage resulted in significantly larger landing zone diameter measurements compared to TEE (23.4 mm vs 22.2 mm, p=0.015) and was closer to the final implanted device size.
Why the study?
Optimal device sizing is crucial for percutaneous LAA closure, but discrepancies exist among different imaging modalities compared to standard TEE.
Does MDCT sizing of the LAA improve agreement with final implanted device size compared to TEE and angiography in patients undergoing percutaneous LAA closure?
Observational (n=61)
No
Does MDCT sizing of the LAA improve agreement with final implanted device size compared to TEE and angiography in patients undergoing percutaneous LAA closure?
Absolute Event Rate: 23.4% vs 22.2%
p-value: p=0.015
MDCT sizing of the LAA yields larger measurements than TEE and more closely approximates the final implanted device size, suggesting its routine use may improve device selection accuracy.
MDCT may refine LAA device sizing over TEE or angiography; leaves open whether routine use improves outcomes in prospective trials.
Background: Optimal device size selection is crucial for percutaneous left atrial appendage (LAA) closure. Transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) is the standard imaging technique for LAA assessment, however there are discrepancies among different imaging modalities. We aimed to evaluate the agreement between device size and LAA size measured by three methods: multi-detector cardiac computed tomography (MDCT), TEE, and angiography. Methods: Patients who underwent percutaneous LAA closure at King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital from 2012 to 2020 were included in this study. MDCT, TEE and angiography were reviewed. LAA ostial diameter, landing zone diameter and maximal depth from each imaging modality was measured and analyzed. Agreement between landing zone diameter and implanted device size was assessed.Results: We reported on 61 consecutive patients who underwent percutaneous LAA closure. The mean age of patients was 74.0 ± 8.4 years. The mean CHA2DS2 score, CHA2DS2-VASc score and HAS-BLED score were 2.8 ± 1.4, 4.6 ± 1.8 and 2.6 ± 1.0, respectively. Device implantation was successful in all patients (100%). Two different LAA closure devices were used: Watchman (n = 43, 70.5%) and Omega (n = 18, 29.5%). Maximum landing zone diameter measured by MDCT scan, TEE and angiography were 23.4 ± 3.9 mm, 22.2 ± 4.8 mm and 22.7 ± 3.5 mm, respectively. MDCT measurement was significantly larger than TEE measurement (p = 0.015) and closer to implanted device size compared with TEE and angiography. The difference between landing zone diameter measured by CT scan and device size was -1.65 ± 2.0 mm compared with -4.8 ± 4.6 mm for TEE and -4.3 ± 3.3 mm for angiography.Conclusion: MDCT sizing of LAA results in larger measurement than TEE. Routine implementation of MDCT sizing may improve procedural success with more accurate device size selection.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Montrivade et al. (2021) conducted an observational in Atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (n=61). Multi-detector cardiac computed tomography (MDCT) sizing vs. Transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) sizing was evaluated on Maximum landing zone diameter (p=0.015). MDCT sizing of the left atrial appendage resulted in significantly larger landing zone diameter measurements compared to TEE (23.4 mm vs 22.2 mm, p=0.015) and was closer to the final implanted device size.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: