Acta cardiologica · 2021
Real-time echocardiography-fluoroscopy fusion imaging for left atrial appendage closure: prime time for fusion imaging?
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
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.
Afzal Shazia, Piayda Kerstin, Hellhammer Katharina, Veulemans Verena, Wolff Georg, Heidari Houtan, Stüwe Dominique, Kanschik Dominika, Polzin Amin, Kelm Malte, Zeus Tobias
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Real-time echocardiography-fluoroscopy fusion imaging (FI) merges real-time echocardiographic imaging with fluoroscopic images allowing intuitive anatomical spatial orientation during structural heart disease interventions. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of FI during percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC).
METHODS: 34 consecutive patients before (-FI) and 121 patients after (+FI) the introduction of FI for LAAC were included in a single-centre study. In-hospital safety parameters were analysed according to adverse event (AE) definition of the Munich consensus document and procedure-related parameters were assessed for efficacy. An ANCOVA was performed to investigate the influence of a learning curve.
RESULTS: Time until successful transseptal puncture was significantly reduced as well as total procedure time and the amount of contrast agent used (+FI/-FI:17 ± 6.35 min vs. 22 ± 8.33 min, p = 0.001; +FI/-FI: 50 min IQR 43 min - 60 min vs. 57 min IQR 45 min -70 min; p = 0.013; +FI/-FI: 70 mL, IQR 55 ml-90 mL vs. 152 mL, IQR 107 mL - 205 mL; p < 0.001). However, fluoroscopy time and dose-area product did not differ between both groups. There was no significant difference in the occurrence of in-hospital adverse events (+FI/-FI: 2.5% vs. 0%; p = 0.596). The ANCOVA revealed that the learning curve does not affect procedural efficacy parameters such as procedure time, time to transseptal puncture, amount of contrast agent and dose-area product.
CONCLUSIONS: FI for LAAC reduces the total procedure time, the time to successful transseptal puncture and periprocedural amount of contrast agent.
METHODS: 34 consecutive patients before (-FI) and 121 patients after (+FI) the introduction of FI for LAAC were included in a single-centre study. In-hospital safety parameters were analysed according to adverse event (AE) definition of the Munich consensus document and procedure-related parameters were assessed for efficacy. An ANCOVA was performed to investigate the influence of a learning curve.
RESULTS: Time until successful transseptal puncture was significantly reduced as well as total procedure time and the amount of contrast agent used (+FI/-FI:17 ± 6.35 min vs. 22 ± 8.33 min, p = 0.001; +FI/-FI: 50 min IQR 43 min - 60 min vs. 57 min IQR 45 min -70 min; p = 0.013; +FI/-FI: 70 mL, IQR 55 ml-90 mL vs. 152 mL, IQR 107 mL - 205 mL; p < 0.001). However, fluoroscopy time and dose-area product did not differ between both groups. There was no significant difference in the occurrence of in-hospital adverse events (+FI/-FI: 2.5% vs. 0%; p = 0.596). The ANCOVA revealed that the learning curve does not affect procedural efficacy parameters such as procedure time, time to transseptal puncture, amount of contrast agent and dose-area product.
CONCLUSIONS: FI for LAAC reduces the total procedure time, the time to successful transseptal puncture and periprocedural amount of contrast agent.