AIMS: Device sizing for LAA closure using transoesophageal echocardiography (TEE) can be challenging due to complex LAA anatomy. We investigated whether the use of 3D-printed left atrial appendage (LAA) models based on preprocedural computed tomography (CT) permits accurate device sizing. METHODS AND RESULTS: Twenty-two (22) patients (73±8 years, 55% male) with atrial fibrillation requiring anticoagulation at high bleeding risk underwent LAA closure (WATCHMAN device). Preprocedurally, LAA was sized by TEE and third-generation dual-source CT. Based on CT, 3D printing models of LAA anatomy were created for simulation of device implantation. Device compression was assessed in a CT scan of the 3D model with the implanted device. Implantation was successful in all patients. Mean LAA ostium diameter based on TEE was 22±4 mm and based on CT 25±3 mm (p=0.014). Predicted device size based on simulated implantation in the 3D model was equal to the device finally implanted in 21/22 patients (95%). TEE would have undersized the device in 10/22 patients (45%). Device compression determined in the 3D-CT model corresponded closely with compression upon implantation (16±3% vs. 18±5%, r=0.622, p=0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Patient-specific CT-based 3D printing models may assist device selection and prediction of device compression in the context of interventional LAA closure.
AIMS: Device sizing for LAA closure using transoesophageal echocardiography (TEE) can be challenging due to complex LAA anatomy. We investigated whether the use of 3D-printed left atrial appendage (LAA) models based on preprocedural computed tomography (CT) permits accurate device sizing. METHODS AND RESULTS: Twenty-two (22) patients (73±8 years, 55% male) with atrial fibrillation requiring anticoagulation at high bleeding risk underwent LAA closure (WATCHMAN device). Preprocedurally, LAA was sized by TEE and third-generation dual-source CT. Based on CT, 3D printing models of LAA anatomy were created for simulation of device implantation. Device compression was assessed in a CT scan of the 3D model with the implanted device. Implantation was successful in all patients. Mean LAA ostium diameter based on TEE was 22±4 mm and based on CT 25±3 mm (p=0.014). Predicted device size based on simulated implantation in the 3D model was equal to the device finally implanted in 21/22 patients (95%). TEE would have undersized the device in 10/22 patients (45%). Device compression determined in the 3D-CT model corresponded closely with compression upon implantation (16±3% vs. 18±5%, r=0.622, p=0.003). CONCLUSIONS:Patient-specific CT-based 3D printing models may assist device selection and prediction of device compression in the context of interventional LAA closure.
Authors: Ramtin Gharleghi; Claire A Dessalles; Ronil Lal; Sinead McCraith; Kiran Sarathy; Nigel Jepson; James Otton; Abdul I Barakat; Susann Beier Journal: Ann Biomed Eng Date: 2021-05-17 Impact factor: 3.934
Authors: Jan Witowski; Mateusz Sitkowski; Tomasz Zuzak; Jasamine Coles-Black; Jason Chuen; Piotr Major; Michał Pdziwiatr Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2018-05-22 Impact factor: 2.924
Authors: Jarosław Meyer-Szary; Marlon Souza Luis; Szymon Mikulski; Agastya Patel; Finn Schulz; Dmitry Tretiakow; Justyna Fercho; Kinga Jaguszewska; Mikołaj Frankiewicz; Ewa Pawłowska; Radosław Targoński; Łukasz Szarpak; Katarzyna Dądela; Robert Sabiniewicz; Joanna Kwiatkowska Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-03-11 Impact factor: 3.390