Key result
ICE-guided LAAC did not significantly increase the risk of iatrogenic atrial septal defect compared to TEE- or DSA-guided LAAC (adjusted OR 1.681; 95% CI 0.634-4.455; p=0.296).
Why the study?
Data on iatrogenic atrial septal defect after ICE-guided left atrial appendage closure are limited, and whether ICE-guided transseptal puncture increases iASD risk is controversial.
Does intracardiac echocardiography (ICE)-guided left atrial appendage closure increase the incidence of iatrogenic atrial septal defect compared to TEE- or DSA-guided closure in patients undergoing LAAC?
Cohort (n=177)
Does intracardiac echocardiography (ICE)-guided left atrial appendage closure increase the incidence of iatrogenic atrial septal defect compared to TEE- or DSA-guided closure in patients undergoing LAAC?
Odds Ratio: 1.681 (95% CI 0.634–4.455)
Absolute Event Rate: 21.4% vs 15.4%
p-value: p=0.296
ICE-guided left atrial appendage closure appears safe and does not significantly increase the risk of iatrogenic atrial septal defect compared to traditional TEE or DSA guidance.
Background: The data on iatrogenic atrial septal defect (iASD) after left atrial appendage closure (LAAC), especially intracardiac echocardiography (ICE)-guided LAAC, are limited. Compared with transesophageal echocardiography (TEE)- or digital subtraction angiography (DSA)-guided LAAC, the transseptal puncture (TP) ICE-guided LAAC is more complicated. Whether or not ICE-guided TP increases the chances of iASD is controversial. We investigate the incidence, size, and clinical outcomes of iASD after ICE-guided LAAC. Methods: A total of 177 patients who underwent LAAC were enrolled in this study and were assigned to the ICE-guided group (group 1) and the TEE- or DSA-guided group (group 2). Echocardiography results and clinical performances at months 2 and 12 post-procedure were collected from the electronic outpatient records. Results: A total of 112 and 65 patients were assigned to group 1 and group 2, respectively. The incidence of iASD at follow-up (FU) month 2 was comparable between the groups (21.4% in group 1 vs. 15.4% in group 2, p = 0.429). At month 12 of FU, the closure rate of iASD was comparable to that of group 2 (70.6% vs. 71.4%, p = 1.000). No right-to-left (RL) shunt was observed among the iASD patients during the FU. Numerically larger iASD were observed in group 1 patients at month 2 of FU (2.8 ± 0.9 mm vs. 2.2 ± 0.8 mm, p = 0.065). No new-onset of pulmonary hypertension and iASD-related adverse events were observed. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that ICE-guided LAAC was not associated with the development of iASD (adjusted OR = 1.681; 95%CI, 0.634–4.455; p = 0.296). Conclusions: The ICE-guided LAAC procedure does not increase the risk of iASD. Despite the numerically large size of the iASD, it did not increase the risk of developing adverse complications.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ma et al. (2022) conducted a cohort in Left atrial appendage closure (n=177). Intracardiac echocardiography (ICE)-guided LAAC vs. TEE- or DSA-guided LAAC was evaluated on Incidence of iatrogenic atrial septal defect (iASD) at follow-up month 2 (adjusted OR 1.681, 95% CI 0.634-4.455, p=0.296). ICE-guided LAAC did not significantly increase the risk of iatrogenic atrial septal defect compared to TEE- or DSA-guided LAAC (adjusted OR 1.681; 95% CI 0.634-4.455; p=0.296).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: