Validation study of new left atrial appendage closure device measurement by two-dimensional and three-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography.
Atrial fibrillation
Left atrial appendage
Left atrial appendage closure
Three-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography
Two-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography
Journal
Journal of echocardiography
ISSN: 1880-344X
Titre abrégé: J Echocardiogr
Pays: Japan
ID NLM: 101263153
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
29 Aug 2023
29 Aug 2023
Historique:
received:
24
01
2023
accepted:
02
08
2023
revised:
08
06
2023
medline:
30
8
2023
pubmed:
30
8
2023
entrez:
29
8
2023
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
In left atrial appendage closure using WATCHMAN FLX, accurate device measurement by transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) is important. We aimed to experimentally validate appropriate methods of device measurement with two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) TEE compared with actual size. We prepared a full range of device sizes (20, 24, 27, 31, 35 mm), each with five different compression rates. Each device was measured by 2D and 3D TEE at depths of 2, 4, and 6 cm in vitro using inner, outer, and middle line methods. We compared the difference between the actual size by caliper and measurements at each compression rate and depth by the three methods in 2D and 3D TEE. A total of 450 patterns of measurements were analyzed. The differences using the middle line method were much less than those using the inner and outer line methods in 2D and 3D TEE (2D TEE: 0.45 ± 0.36 vs. 2.55 ± 0.99 vs. 2.59 ± 0.72 mm, p < 0.01; 3D TEE: 0.34 ± 0.27 vs. 2.38 ± 0.69 vs. 1.86 ± 0.77 mm, p < 0.01). Moreover, the differences in measurements by 3D TEE were more accurate than those of 2D TEE in the inner (2.47 ± 1.86 vs. 1.86 ± 0.77 mm, p < 0.01) and middle (0.58 ± 0.37 vs. 0.34 ± 0.27 mm, p < 0.01) line methods. Middle line method by 3D TEE is the most reliable approach for device measurement at left atrial appendage closure using WATCHMAN FLX device.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
In left atrial appendage closure using WATCHMAN FLX, accurate device measurement by transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) is important. We aimed to experimentally validate appropriate methods of device measurement with two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) TEE compared with actual size.
METHODS
METHODS
We prepared a full range of device sizes (20, 24, 27, 31, 35 mm), each with five different compression rates. Each device was measured by 2D and 3D TEE at depths of 2, 4, and 6 cm in vitro using inner, outer, and middle line methods. We compared the difference between the actual size by caliper and measurements at each compression rate and depth by the three methods in 2D and 3D TEE.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 450 patterns of measurements were analyzed. The differences using the middle line method were much less than those using the inner and outer line methods in 2D and 3D TEE (2D TEE: 0.45 ± 0.36 vs. 2.55 ± 0.99 vs. 2.59 ± 0.72 mm, p < 0.01; 3D TEE: 0.34 ± 0.27 vs. 2.38 ± 0.69 vs. 1.86 ± 0.77 mm, p < 0.01). Moreover, the differences in measurements by 3D TEE were more accurate than those of 2D TEE in the inner (2.47 ± 1.86 vs. 1.86 ± 0.77 mm, p < 0.01) and middle (0.58 ± 0.37 vs. 0.34 ± 0.27 mm, p < 0.01) line methods.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Middle line method by 3D TEE is the most reliable approach for device measurement at left atrial appendage closure using WATCHMAN FLX device.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37644318
doi: 10.1007/s12574-023-00619-7
pii: 10.1007/s12574-023-00619-7
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2023. Japanese Society of Echocardiography.
Références
Kirchhof P, Benussi S, Kotecha D, et al. 2016 ESC guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation developed in collaboration with EACTS. Eur Heart J. 2016;37:2893–962.
doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehw210
pubmed: 27567408
Glikson M, Wolff R, Hindricks G, et al. EHRA/EAPCI expert consensus statement on catheterbased left atrial appendage occlusion—an update. EuroIntervention. 2020;15:1133–80.
doi: 10.4244/EIJY19M08_01
pubmed: 31474583
Holmes DR, Reddy VY, Turi ZG, et al. Percutaneous closure of the left atrial appendage versus warfarin therapy for prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation: a randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2009;374:534–42.
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61343-X
pubmed: 19683639
Holmes DR Jr, Kar S, Price MJ, et al. Prospective randomized evaluation of the Watchman left atrial appendage closure device in patients with atrial fibrillation versus long-term warfarin therapy: the PREVAIL trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64:1–12.
doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2014.04.029
Holmes DR Jr, Reddy VY, Gordon NT, et al. Long-term safety and efficacy in continued access left atrial appendage closure registries. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;74:2878–89.
doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.09.064
pubmed: 31806131
Freeman JV, Varosy P, Price MJ, et al. The NCDR left atrial appendage occlusion registry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;75:1503–18.
doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.12.040
pubmed: 32238316
pmcid: 7205034
Cruz-González I, Korsholm K, Trejo-Velasco B, et al. Procedural and short-term results with the new Watchman FLX left atrial appendage occlusion device. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2020;13:2732–41.
doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2020.06.056
pubmed: 33189641
Wunderlich NC, Beigel R, Swaans MJ, et al. Percutaneous interventions for left atrial appendage exclusion: options, assessment, and imaging using 2D and 3D echocardiography. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015;8:472–88.
doi: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2015.02.002
pubmed: 25882576
Rajiah P, Alkhouli M, Thaden J, et al. Pre- and postprocedural CT of transcatheter left atrial appendage closure devices. Radiographics. 2021;41:680–98.
doi: 10.1148/rg.2021200136
pubmed: 33939541
Nucifora G, Faletra FF, Regoli F, et al. Evaluation of the left atrial appendage with real-time 3-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography: implications for catheter-based left atrial appendage closure. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2011;4:514–23.
doi: 10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.111.963892
pubmed: 21737601
Masahiko A, OCEAN-SHD Investigators. Computed tomography measurement for left atrial appendage closure. Cardiovasc Interv Ther. 2022;37:440–9.
doi: 10.1007/s12928-022-00852-4
Alli O, David H Jr. Evaluation of the WATCHMAN left atrial appendage closure device. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2014;11:541–51.
doi: 10.1586/17434440.2014.940315
pubmed: 25060590
Wang Y, Di Biase L, Horton RP, et al. Left atrial appendage studied by computed tomography to help planning for appendage closure device placement. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2010;21:973–82.
doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8167.2010.01814.x
pubmed: 20550614
Alkhouli M, Sievert H, Rihal CS. Device embolization in structural heart interventions: incidence, outcomes, and retrieval techniques. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;12:113–26.
doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2018.08.033
pubmed: 30678792
Ellis CR, Piccini JP. Left atrial appendage closure: two steps forward, one step back. Circulation. 2018;138:886–8.
doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.035764
pubmed: 30354457