Pavel Osmancik1, Dalibor Herman1, Hana Linkova1,2,3, Marek Hozman2, Marek Labos3. 1. Cardiocenter, Dept. of cardiology, Third Faculty of Medicine, Charles University Prague, and University Hospital Kralovske Vinohrady, Prague, Czech Republic. 2. Cardiocenter, Karlovy Vary Regional Hospital, Karlovy Vary, Czech Republic. 3. Dept. of Radiology, Third Faculty of Medicine, Charles University Prague, and University Hospital Kralovske Vinohrady, Prague, Czech Republic.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Left atrial appendage (LAA) closure (LAAC) is accompanied by a high risk of complications. Due to the complex anatomy of the LAA and the oval-shaped ostium, the proper sizing of the device is often difficult. PURPOSE: To assess individualized fluoroscopy viewing angles using pre-procedural CT analysis and to compare the results of landing zone measurements obtained from CT, transesophageal echocardiography (TEE), intracardiac echocardiography (ICE), and fluoroscopy. METHODS: Patients with indications for LAAC were enrolled. Cardiac CT and TEE were done before the procedure; ICE and fluoroscopy measurements were done peri-procedurally. Multiplanar reconstruction of CT images, using FluoroCT software, was done, and optimal "personalized" viewing angles for fluoroscopy were determined. Moreover, a mean (using multiplanar CT reconstruction, derived from the LAA perimetr) amd maximum (using all four imaging modalitities) landing zone (LZ) of the LAA were masured. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients were analyzed. Despite significant correlation between LZs obtained from different imaging modalities, the values of LZs differed significantly; the mean LZ diameter on CT was 20.60 ± 3.42 mm, the maximum diameters were 21.99 ± 4.03 mm (CT), 18.72 ± 2.44 mm (TEE), 18.20 ± 2.68 mm (ICE), and 17.76 ± 3.24 mm (fluoroscopy). The mean CT diameter matched with the final device selection in 92% patients, while fluoroscopy or TEE maximum diameters in only 72% patients. Optimal viewing angles differed significantly from the fluoroscopy projections usually recommended by the manufacturer in 3 patients. CONCLUSIONS: CT provides the best measurement of the LZ and the best prediction of the optimum fluoroscopy projections for the implantation procedure.
BACKGROUND: Left atrial appendage (LAA) closure (LAAC) is accompanied by a high risk of complications. Due to the complex anatomy of the LAA and the oval-shaped ostium, the proper sizing of the device is often difficult. PURPOSE: To assess individualized fluoroscopy viewing angles using pre-procedural CT analysis and to compare the results of landing zone measurements obtained from CT, transesophageal echocardiography (TEE), intracardiac echocardiography (ICE), and fluoroscopy. METHODS: Patients with indications for LAAC were enrolled. Cardiac CT and TEE were done before the procedure; ICE and fluoroscopy measurements were done peri-procedurally. Multiplanar reconstruction of CT images, using FluoroCT software, was done, and optimal "personalized" viewing angles for fluoroscopy were determined. Moreover, a mean (using multiplanar CT reconstruction, derived from the LAA perimetr) amd maximum (using all four imaging modalitities) landing zone (LZ) of the LAA were masured. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients were analyzed. Despite significant correlation between LZs obtained from different imaging modalities, the values of LZs differed significantly; the mean LZ diameter on CT was 20.60 ± 3.42 mm, the maximum diameters were 21.99 ± 4.03 mm (CT), 18.72 ± 2.44 mm (TEE), 18.20 ± 2.68 mm (ICE), and 17.76 ± 3.24 mm (fluoroscopy). The mean CT diameter matched with the final device selection in 92% patients, while fluoroscopy or TEE maximum diameters in only 72% patients. Optimal viewing angles differed significantly from the fluoroscopy projections usually recommended by the manufacturer in 3 patients. CONCLUSIONS: CT provides the best measurement of the LZ and the best prediction of the optimum fluoroscopy projections for the implantation procedure.
Authors: Pascal Thériault-Lauzier; Ali Andalib; Giuseppe Martucci; Darren Mylotte; Renzo Cecere; Rüediger Lange; Didier Tchétché; Thomas Modine; Nicolas van Mieghem; Stephan Windecker; Jean Buithieu; Nicolo Piazza Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2014-08-13 Impact factor: 11.195
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: Tevfik Fehmi Ismail; Sandeep Panikker; Vias Markides; John P Foran; Simon Padley; Michael B Rubens; Tom Wong; Edward Nicol Journal: J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr Date: 2015-01-24
Authors: Dennis T L Wong; Angela G Bertaso; Gary Y H Liew; Viji S Thomson; Michael S Cunnington; James D Richardson; Robert Gooley; Siobhan Lockwood; Ian T Meredith; Matthew I Worthley; Stephen G Worthley Journal: J Invasive Cardiol Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 2.022
Authors: Loren P Budge; Katherine M Shaffer; J Randall Moorman; Douglas E Lake; John D Ferguson; J Michael Mangrum Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2008-08-07 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: Adil Rajwani; Adam J Nelson; Masoumeh G Shirazi; Patrick J S Disney; Karen S L Teo; Dennis T L Wong; Glenn D Young; Stephen G Worthley Journal: Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2017-12-01 Impact factor: 6.875