MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.1161/jaha.120.020615

Медицинская библиотека · Journal of the American Heart Association · 2021

Additive Value of Preprocedural Computed Tomography Planning Versus Stand-Alone Transesophageal Echocardiogram Guidance to Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion: Comparison of Real-World Practice.

So Chak-Yu, Kang Guson, Villablanca Pedro A, Ignatius Abel, Asghar Saleha, Dhillon Dilshan, Lee James C, Khan Arfaat, Singh Gurjit, Frisoli Tiberio M, O'Neill Brian P, Eng Marvin H, Song Thomas, Pantelic Milan, O'Neill William W, Wang Dee Dee

Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАПеревод пока не подготовлен

Аннотация

Background Transesophageal echocardiogram is currently the standard preprocedural imaging for left atrial appendage occlusion. This study aimed to assess the additive value of preprocedural computed tomography (CT) planning versus stand-alone transesophageal echocardiogram imaging guidance to left atrial appendage occlusion. Methods and Results We retrospectively reviewed 485 Watchman implantations at a single center to compare the outcomes of using additional CT preprocedural planning (n=328, 67.6%) versus stand-alone transesophageal echocardiogram guidance (n=157, 32.4%) for left atrial appendage occlusion. The primary end point was the rate of successful device implantation without major peri-device leak (>5 mm). Secondary end points included major adverse events, total procedural time, delivery sheath and devices used, risk of major peri-device leak and device-related thrombus at follow-up imaging. A single/anterior-curve delivery sheath was used more commonly in those who underwent CT imaging (35.9% versus 18.8%; P<0.001). Additional preprocedural CT planning was associated with a significantly higher successful device implantation rate (98.5% versus 94.9%; P=0.02), a shorter procedural time (median, 45.5 minutes versus 51.0 minutes; P=0.03) and a less frequent change of device size (5.6% versus 12.1%; P=0.01), particularly device upsize (4% versus 9.4%; P=0.02). However, there was no significant difference in the risk of major adverse events (2.1% versus 1.9%; P=0.87). Only 1 significant peri-device leak (0.2%) and 5 device-related thrombi were detected in follow-up (1.2%) with no intergroup difference. Conclusions Additional preprocedural planning using CT in Watchman implantation was associated with a higher successful device implantation rate, a shorter total procedural time, and a less frequent change of device sizes.

Для цитирования: So Chak-Yu, Kang Guson, Villablanca Pedro A, Ignatius Abel, Asghar Saleha, Dhillon Dilshan, Lee James C, Khan Arfaat, Singh Gurjit, Frisoli Tiberio M, O'Neill Brian P, Eng Marvin H, Song Thomas, Pantelic Milan, O'Neill William W, Wang Dee Dee. Additive Value of Preprocedural Computed Tomography Planning Versus Stand-Alone Transesophageal Echocardiogram Guidance to Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion: Comparison of Real-World Practice.. Journal of the American Heart Association. 2021. DOI: 10.1161/jaha.120.020615.

Предметные рубрики MeSH

Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

История · было → стало

Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.