Majd E Hemam1, Kenji Kuroki2, Paul A Schurmann1, Amish S Dave1, Diego A Rodríguez3, Luis C Sáenz3, Vivek Y Reddy2, Miguel Valderrábano4. 1. Division of Cardiac Electrophysiology, Houston Methodist DeBakey Heart and Vascular Center, Houston, Texas. 2. Mount Sinai Helmsley Electrophysiology Center, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, New York. 3. Fundación Cardioinfantil, Bogotá, Colombia. 4. Division of Cardiac Electrophysiology, Houston Methodist DeBakey Heart and Vascular Center, Houston, Texas. Electronic address: mvalderrabano@houstonmethodist.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Imaging guidance for left atrial appendage (LAA) closure (LAAC) conventionally consists of transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) and fluoroscopy under general anesthesia (GA). Intracardiac echocardiography (ICE) can eliminate the need for GA, expedite procedural logistics, and reduce the patient experience to a simple venous puncture. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to define optimal ICE views and compare procedural parameters and cost of ICE vs TEE during LAAC with the Watchman device. METHODS: Optimal ICE views of the LAA for Watchman implant were delineated using Carto-Sound and 3-dimensional rendition of the LAA in 6 patients. Procedural and financial parameters of 104 consecutive patients with standard indications for LAAC undergoing Watchman implant using ICE guidance through a single transseptal puncture (n = 53 [51%]) were compared with those of TEE-guided implants (n = 51 [49%]) in 3 centers. RESULTS: Clinical characteristics were similar between the 2 groups. Total in-room, turnaround, and fluoroscopy times all were shorter using ICE (P <.05) under local anesthesia compared to the TEE group. Implant success was 100% in both groups without peri-device leaks or procedural complications. Follow-up TEE showed no significant peri-device leak in both groups. Total hospital charges for ICE with local anesthesia vs TEE were similar, as were total hospital direct and indirect costs. Professional fees were significantly lower with ICE and local anesthesia than with TEE because the charge of anesthesia staff was avoided. CONCLUSION: ICE-guided Watchman implant is safe, feasible, and comparable in cost to TEE during LAAC with a Watchman device but avoids GA and expedites procedure turnaround.
BACKGROUND: Imaging guidance for left atrial appendage (LAA) closure (LAAC) conventionally consists of transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) and fluoroscopy under general anesthesia (GA). Intracardiac echocardiography (ICE) can eliminate the need for GA, expedite procedural logistics, and reduce the patient experience to a simple venous puncture. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to define optimal ICE views and compare procedural parameters and cost of ICE vs TEE during LAAC with the Watchman device. METHODS: Optimal ICE views of the LAA for Watchman implant were delineated using Carto-Sound and 3-dimensional rendition of the LAA in 6 patients. Procedural and financial parameters of 104 consecutive patients with standard indications for LAAC undergoing Watchman implant using ICE guidance through a single transseptal puncture (n = 53 [51%]) were compared with those of TEE-guided implants (n = 51 [49%]) in 3 centers. RESULTS: Clinical characteristics were similar between the 2 groups. Total in-room, turnaround, and fluoroscopy times all were shorter using ICE (P <.05) under local anesthesia compared to the TEE group. Implant success was 100% in both groups without peri-device leaks or procedural complications. Follow-up TEE showed no significant peri-device leak in both groups. Total hospital charges for ICE with local anesthesia vs TEE were similar, as were total hospital direct and indirect costs. Professional fees were significantly lower with ICE and local anesthesia than with TEE because the charge of anesthesia staff was avoided. CONCLUSION:ICE-guided Watchman implant is safe, feasible, and comparable in cost to TEE during LAAC with a Watchman device but avoids GA and expedites procedure turnaround.
Authors: Craig T January; L Samuel Wann; Joseph S Alpert; Hugh Calkins; Joaquin E Cigarroa; Joseph C Cleveland; Jamie B Conti; Patrick T Ellinor; Michael D Ezekowitz; Michael E Field; Katherine T Murray; Ralph L Sacco; William G Stevenson; Patrick J Tchou; Cynthia M Tracy; Clyde W Yancy Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2014-03-28 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Sanjeev Saksena; Jasbir Sra; Luc Jordaens; Fred Kusumoto; Bradley Knight; Andrea Natale; Abraham Kocheril; Navin C Nanda; Rangadham Nagarakanti; Ann Marie Simon; Mary A Viggiano; Tasneem Lokhandwala; Mary L Chandler Journal: Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol Date: 2010-09-18
Authors: Jian-Fang Ren; Francis E Marchlinski; Gregory E Supple; Mathew D Hutchinson; Fermin C Garcia; Michael P Riley; David Lin; Erica S Zado; David J Callans; Victor A Ferrari Journal: Echocardiography Date: 2012-09-25 Impact factor: 1.724
Authors: Francis A Ponnuthurai; William J van Gaal; Amy Burchell; Andrew R Mitchell; Neil Wilson; Oliver J Ormerod Journal: Int J Cardiol Date: 2007-11-26 Impact factor: 4.164
Authors: Ivan C K Ho; Petr Neuzil; Tomas Mraz; Zuzana Beldova; Dan Gross; Pavel Formanek; Milos Taborsky; Petr Niederle; Jeremy N Ruskin; Vivek Y Reddy Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2007-01-17 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: David R Holmes; Vivek Y Reddy; Zoltan G Turi; Shephal K Doshi; Horst Sievert; Maurice Buchbinder; Christopher M Mullin; Peter Sick Journal: Lancet Date: 2009-08-15 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Christopher P Ruisi; Neil Brysiewicz; Jeremy D Asnes; Lissa Sugeng; Mark Marieb; Jude Clancy; Joseph G Akar Journal: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol Date: 2013-01-10 Impact factor: 1.976
Authors: Fareed Moses S Collado; Claudia M Lama von Buchwald; Christina K Anderson; Nidhi Madan; Hussam S Suradi; Henry D Huang; Hani Jneid; Clifford J Kavinsky Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2021-10-20 Impact factor: 5.501