Journal of cardiovascular computed tomography · 2020
CT assessment of the left atrial appendage post-transcatheter occlusion - A systematic review and meta analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание 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.
Banga Sandeep, Osman Mohammed, Sengupta Partho P, Benjamin Mina M, Shrestha Sirish, Challa Abhiram, Zeb Irfan, Kadiyala Madhavi, Mills James, Balla Sudarshan, Raybuck Bryan, Seetharam Karthik, Hamirani Yasmin S
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) is the standard imaging modality used to assess the left atrial appendage (LAA) after transcatheter device occlusion. Cardiac computed tomography angiography (CCTA) offers an alternative non-invasive modality in these patients. We aimed to conduct a comparison of the two modalities.
METHODS: We performed a comprehensive systematic review of the current literature pertaining to CCTA to establish its usefulness during follow-up for patients undergoing LAA device closure. Studies that reported the prevalence of inadequate LAA closure on both CCTA and TEE were further evaluated in a meta-analysis. 19 studies were used in the systematic review, and six studies were used in the meta-analysis.
RESULTS: The use of CCTA was associated with a higher likelihood of detecting LAA patency than the use of TEE (OR, 2.79, 95% CI 1.34-5.80, p = 0.006, I2 = 70.4%). There was no significant difference in the prevalence of peridevice gap ≥5 mm (OR, 3.04, 95% CI 0.70-13.17, p = 0.13, I2 = 0%) between the two modalities. Studies that reported LAA assessment in early and delayed phase techniques detected a 25%-50% higher prevalence of LAA patency on the delayed imaging.
CONCLUSION: CCTA can be used as an alternative to TEE for LAA assessment post occlusion. Standardized CCTA acquisition and interpretation protocols should be developed for clinical practice.
METHODS: We performed a comprehensive systematic review of the current literature pertaining to CCTA to establish its usefulness during follow-up for patients undergoing LAA device closure. Studies that reported the prevalence of inadequate LAA closure on both CCTA and TEE were further evaluated in a meta-analysis. 19 studies were used in the systematic review, and six studies were used in the meta-analysis.
RESULTS: The use of CCTA was associated with a higher likelihood of detecting LAA patency than the use of TEE (OR, 2.79, 95% CI 1.34-5.80, p = 0.006, I2 = 70.4%). There was no significant difference in the prevalence of peridevice gap ≥5 mm (OR, 3.04, 95% CI 0.70-13.17, p = 0.13, I2 = 0%) between the two modalities. Studies that reported LAA assessment in early and delayed phase techniques detected a 25%-50% higher prevalence of LAA patency on the delayed imaging.
CONCLUSION: CCTA can be used as an alternative to TEE for LAA assessment post occlusion. Standardized CCTA acquisition and interpretation protocols should be developed for clinical practice.