Krishna Akella1, Ghulam Murtaza1, Mohit Turagam2, Sharan Sharma3, Bader Madoukh4, Anish Amin5, Rakesh Gopinathannair1, Dhanunjaya Lakkireddy6. 1. The Kansas City Heart Rhythm Institute (KCHRI) HCA MidWest, Overland Park Regional Medical Center, 12200 W 106th Street, Overland Park, KS, 66215, USA. 2. Division of Cardiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA. 3. Department of Cardiology, Garden City Hospital, Garden City, MI, USA. 4. Department of Internal Medicine, Overland Park Regional Medical Center, Overland Park, KS, USA. 5. Section of Cardiac Electrophysiology, Department of Cardiology, OhioHealth Heart and Vascular Physicians, Riverside Methodist Hospital, 3535 Olentangy River Road, Columbus, OH, 43214, USA. 6. The Kansas City Heart Rhythm Institute (KCHRI) HCA MidWest, Overland Park Regional Medical Center, 12200 W 106th Street, Overland Park, KS, 66215, USA. dlakkireddy@kchri.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Intracardiac echocardiography (ICE) is increasingly common among periprocedural imaging modalities used during complex cardiac procedures. We sought to perform a meta-analysis comparing transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) and ICE in endocardial left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO). METHODS: We searched PubMed and Google Scholar regarding abstracts and manuscripts using keywords: atrial fibrillation, left atrial appendage occlusion, Watchman, Amplatzer Cardiac Plug, Amulet, intracardiac echocardiography, and transesophageal echocardiography from their inception to July 12, 2019. Data extraction was performed using standard form for the following: title, year of publication, sample size, comorbid conditions, LAAO device, type of pre-procedural imaging, intraprocedural imaging, and clinical outcomes including the following: acute procedural success, fluoroscopy, and total procedure time and complications. RESULTS: A total of 42 relevant studies were screened resulting in inclusion of 8 observational studies comparing TEE and ICE in endocardial LAAO. Outcomes assessed including procedural success (RR 1.00, 95% CI (0.97-1.03, p = 0.98)), complications (RR 0.77, 95% CI (0.52 to 1.15, p = 0.20)), fluoroscopy time (mean difference - 0.40, 95% CI (-3.12-2.32, p = 0.77)), and procedural time (mean difference - 8.02, 95% CI (-22.81 to 6.76, p = 0.29)) were found to be similar between both groups. CONCLUSIONS: While TEE is the gold standard for perioperative imaging with LAAO, ICE is a feasible and safe alternative that reduces exposure to general anesthesia and associated potential risks.
PURPOSE: Intracardiac echocardiography (ICE) is increasingly common among periprocedural imaging modalities used during complex cardiac procedures. We sought to perform a meta-analysis comparing transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) and ICE in endocardial left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO). METHODS: We searched PubMed and Google Scholar regarding abstracts and manuscripts using keywords: atrial fibrillation, left atrial appendage occlusion, Watchman, Amplatzer Cardiac Plug, Amulet, intracardiac echocardiography, and transesophageal echocardiography from their inception to July 12, 2019. Data extraction was performed using standard form for the following: title, year of publication, sample size, comorbid conditions, LAAO device, type of pre-procedural imaging, intraprocedural imaging, and clinical outcomes including the following: acute procedural success, fluoroscopy, and total procedure time and complications. RESULTS: A total of 42 relevant studies were screened resulting in inclusion of 8 observational studies comparing TEE and ICE in endocardial LAAO. Outcomes assessed including procedural success (RR 1.00, 95% CI (0.97-1.03, p = 0.98)), complications (RR 0.77, 95% CI (0.52 to 1.15, p = 0.20)), fluoroscopy time (mean difference - 0.40, 95% CI (-3.12-2.32, p = 0.77)), and procedural time (mean difference - 8.02, 95% CI (-22.81 to 6.76, p = 0.29)) were found to be similar between both groups. CONCLUSIONS: While TEE is the gold standard for perioperative imaging with LAAO, ICE is a feasible and safe alternative that reduces exposure to general anesthesia and associated potential risks.
Authors: Sergio Berti; Luigi Emilio Pastormerlo; Gennaro Santoro; Elvis Brscic; Matteo Montorfano; Luigi Vignali; Paolo Danna; Claudio Tondo; Marco Rezzaghi; Gianpiero D'Amico; Amerigo Stabile; Salvatore Saccà; Giuseppe Patti; Antonio Rapacciuolo; Arnaldo Poli; Paolo Golino; Paolo Magnavacchi; Francesco Meucci; Bruno Pezzulich; Miroslava Stolcova; Giuseppe Tarantini Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2018-06-11 Impact factor: 11.195
Authors: Antonio H Frangieh; Jasmina Alibegovic; Christian Templin; Oliver Gaemperli; Slayman Obeid; Robert Manka; Erik W Holy; Willibald Maier; Thomas F Lüscher; Ronald K Binder Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2016-09-21 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Majd E Hemam; Kenji Kuroki; Paul A Schurmann; Amish S Dave; Diego A Rodríguez; Luis C Sáenz; Vivek Y Reddy; Miguel Valderrábano Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2019-03 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Julian P T Higgins; Douglas G Altman; Peter C Gøtzsche; Peter Jüni; David Moher; Andrew D Oxman; Jelena Savovic; Kenneth F Schulz; Laura Weeks; Jonathan A C Sterne Journal: BMJ Date: 2011-10-18