PURPOSE: Recent development of percutaneous left atrial appendage (LAA) occlusion devices has underscored the need for an accurate understanding of LAA morphology and the interchangeability of results from differing imaging modalities. The purpose of this study is to assess LAA morphology and location in AF patients, directly comparing transesophageal echocardiography (TEE), planar cardiac computed tomography (CT), and three-dimensional segmented CT reconstructions. METHODS: Fifty-three patients underwent adequate TEE and cardiac CT. Quantitative measurements of maximal LAA orifice diameters, widths, and depths were obtained from each imaging modality. Left atrial and LAA volumes were measured using segmented CT. RESULTS: The mean LAA orifice diameter for segmented CT, planar CT, and TEE was 28.5 +/- 4.5, 26.3 +/- 4.1, and 26.1 +/- 6.4 mm, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: LAA orifice measurements among these imaging modalities are not interchangeable. This difference may be clinically significant because of the need for accurate sizing of LAA occlusion devices. Use of preprocedural segmented CT may improve initial device sizing.
PURPOSE: Recent development of percutaneous left atrial appendage (LAA) occlusion devices has underscored the need for an accurate understanding of LAA morphology and the interchangeability of results from differing imaging modalities. The purpose of this study is to assess LAA morphology and location in AFpatients, directly comparing transesophageal echocardiography (TEE), planar cardiac computed tomography (CT), and three-dimensional segmented CT reconstructions. METHODS: Fifty-three patients underwent adequate TEE and cardiac CT. Quantitative measurements of maximal LAA orifice diameters, widths, and depths were obtained from each imaging modality. Left atrial and LAA volumes were measured using segmented CT. RESULTS: The mean LAA orifice diameter for segmented CT, planar CT, and TEE was 28.5 +/- 4.5, 26.3 +/- 4.1, and 26.1 +/- 6.4 mm, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: LAA orifice measurements among these imaging modalities are not interchangeable. This difference may be clinically significant because of the need for accurate sizing of LAA occlusion devices. Use of preprocedural segmented CT may improve initial device sizing.
Authors: T Tabata; T Oki; H Yamada; A Iuchi; S Ito; T Hori; T Kitagawa; I Kato; H Kitahata; S Oshita Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 1998-02-01 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Stefan H Ostermayer; Mark Reisman; Paul H Kramer; Ray V Matthews; William A Gray; Peter C Block; Heyder Omran; Antonio L Bartorelli; Paolo Della Bella; Carlo Di Mario; Carlo Pappone; Paul N Casale; Jeffrey W Moses; Athena Poppas; David O Williams; Bernhard Meier; Allan Skanes; Paul S Teirstein; Michael D Lesh; Toshiko Nakai; Yves Bayard; Kai Billinger; Thomas Trepels; Ulrike Krumsdorf; Horst Sievert Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2005-07-05 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: M E Goldman; L A Pearce; R G Hart; M Zabalgoitia; R W Asinger; R Safford; J L Halperin Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 1999-12 Impact factor: 5.251
Authors: Horst Sievert; Michael D Lesh; Thomas Trepels; Heyder Omran; Antonio Bartorelli; Paola Della Bella; Toshiko Nakai; Mark Reisman; Carlo DiMario; Peter Block; Paul Kramer; Dirk Fleschenberg; Ulrike Krumsdorf; Detlef Scherer Journal: Circulation Date: 2002-04-23 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Peter B Sick; Gerhard Schuler; Karl Eugen Hauptmann; Eberhard Grube; Steve Yakubov; Zoltan G Turi; Gregory Mishkel; Steve Almany; David R Holmes Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2007-03-21 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Orly Goitein; Noam Fink; Ilan Hay; Elio Di Segni; Victor Guetta; David Goitein; Yafim Brodov; Eli Konen; Michael Glikson Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2017-01-09 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Witold Streb; Katarzyna Mitręga; Tomasz Podolecki; Magdalena Szymała; Anna Leopold-Jadczyk; Tomasz Kukulski; Zbigniew Kalarus Journal: Cardiol J Date: 2018-03-07 Impact factor: 2.737