Preprocedural cardiac computed tomography versus transesophageal echocardiography for planning left atrial appendage occlusion procedures

• Published in: Journal of cardiovascular imaging 2024, 32(0), , pp.27-27
• Main Authors: Soh, Bing Wei Thaddeus, Gracias, Carlos Sebastian, Sim, Wee Han, Killip, Michael, Waters, Max, Millar, Kevin P, O'Brien, Julie M, Kiernan, Thomas J, Arnous, Samer
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Review; 내과학
• ISSN: 2586-7296; 2586-7210; 2586-7296
• DOI: 10.1186/s44348-024-00029-y

The heterogeneous anatomy of the left atrial appendage (LAA) necessitates preprocedural imaging essential for planning of percutaneous LAA occlusion (LAAO) procedures. While transoesophageal echocardiography (TOE) remains the gold standard, cardiac computed tomography (CT) is becoming increasingly popular. To address the lack of consensus on the optimal imaging modality, we compared the outcomes of preprocedural TOE versus CT for LAAO procedure planning. A retrospective single-center cohort study of all LAAO procedures was performed to compare the outcomes of patients receiving preprocedural TOE versus those receiving CT. The primary outcome was procedural success and rate of major adverse events. The secondary outcomes were total procedure time, rate of device size change, and maximum landing zone diameter. A total of 64 patients was included. Of these, 25 (39.1%) underwent TOE and 39 (60.9%) underwent CT. There was no significant difference in the procedural success rate (96.0% vs. 100%, P = 0.39) or major adverse event rate (4.0% vs. 5.1%, P > 0.99) between TOE and CT patients. Compared with TOE, CT was associated with significantly shorter median procedure time (103 min vs. 124 min, P = 0.02) and a lower rate of device size change (7.7% vs. 28.0%, P = 0.04). Compared to CT, TOE was associated with a significantly smaller mean maximum landing zone diameter (20.8 mm vs. 25.8 mm, P  0.99). Planning of LAAO procedures with CT is associated with a shorter total procedure time and a lower rate of device size change and is less likely to underestimate the maximum landing zone diameter.