International journal of cardiology · 2020
Comparison of fluoroscopy and transesophageal echocardiogram for intra-procedure device surveillance assessment during implantation of Watchman.
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.
Zhang Xiaochun, Jin Qinchun, Kong Dehong, Jiang Yingying, Chen Shasha, Chen Dandan, Hou Cody R, Zhang Lei, Pan Cuizhen, Zhou Daxin, Ge Junbo
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate intraprocedural assessments using transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) and fluoroscopy during left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) with the WATCHMAN device.
METHOD: A total of 208 patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing LAAO were included in this study[101 standard procedures (retrospective cohort) and 107 with fluoroscopy-alone approach (prospective cohort). Individual device position, anchoring, compression and peri-device leak (PDL) were successively analyzed based on TEE and fluoroscopy in the retrospective cohort to summarize detailed fluoroscopic assessments for prospective application. Clinical outcomes were assessed between two cohorts.
RESULTS: For retrospective cohort, TEE and fluoroscopy agreed on device position and anchoring. Compression upon fluoroscopy was well correlated with 2D-TEE (r = 0.908) and the difference in overall detection of PDL was not statistically significant between two imaging modalities (p = 0.304). For the prospective cohort with fluoroscopy-guidance alone, implantation success was similar to that of the retrospective cohort (98.13% vs 100%, p = 0.498). The incidence rate of major clinical adverse events was relatively higher in prospective cohort during hospitalization and follow-up but did not reach significant difference (5.61% vs 1.98%; 0.99% vs 0.93%, p > 0.05). Moreover, the prospective group presented with shorter procedural duration, shorter in-hospital stay and lower total hospitalization cost than retrospective group.
CONCLUSION: LAAO performed by experienced operators in large volume centers is feasible under fluoroscopy guidance. However, there is still a trend in favor of TEE for greater procedural safety and more complete LAA seal. We suggest that this minimalist approach could be proposed in cases with contraindication to general anesthesia and/or TEE.
METHOD: A total of 208 patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing LAAO were included in this study[101 standard procedures (retrospective cohort) and 107 with fluoroscopy-alone approach (prospective cohort). Individual device position, anchoring, compression and peri-device leak (PDL) were successively analyzed based on TEE and fluoroscopy in the retrospective cohort to summarize detailed fluoroscopic assessments for prospective application. Clinical outcomes were assessed between two cohorts.
RESULTS: For retrospective cohort, TEE and fluoroscopy agreed on device position and anchoring. Compression upon fluoroscopy was well correlated with 2D-TEE (r = 0.908) and the difference in overall detection of PDL was not statistically significant between two imaging modalities (p = 0.304). For the prospective cohort with fluoroscopy-guidance alone, implantation success was similar to that of the retrospective cohort (98.13% vs 100%, p = 0.498). The incidence rate of major clinical adverse events was relatively higher in prospective cohort during hospitalization and follow-up but did not reach significant difference (5.61% vs 1.98%; 0.99% vs 0.93%, p > 0.05). Moreover, the prospective group presented with shorter procedural duration, shorter in-hospital stay and lower total hospitalization cost than retrospective group.
CONCLUSION: LAAO performed by experienced operators in large volume centers is feasible under fluoroscopy guidance. However, there is still a trend in favor of TEE for greater procedural safety and more complete LAA seal. We suggest that this minimalist approach could be proposed in cases with contraindication to general anesthesia and/or TEE.