A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

A Comparison of Cardiac Computed Tomography, Transesophageal and Intracardiac Echocardiography, and Fluoroscopy for Planning Left Atrial Appendage Closure. | LitMetric

AI Article Synopsis

  • The study focuses on the challenges of sizing devices for left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) due to complex anatomy and the associated risk of complications.
  • Pre-procedural CT analysis was used to assess individualized fluoroscopy angles and compare landing zone measurements from different imaging modalities.
  • Results showed that CT measurements were more accurate for determining landing zone sizes and predicting optimal fluoroscopy angles, improving device selection success compared to other imaging methods.

Article Abstract

Background: Left atrial appendage (LAA) closure (LAAC) is accompanied by a high risk of complications. Due to the complex anatomy of the LAA and the oval-shaped ostium, the proper sizing of the device is often difficult.

Purpose: To assess individualized fluoroscopy viewing angles using pre-procedural CT analysis and to compare the results of landing zone measurements obtained from CT, transesophageal echocardiography (TEE), intracardiac echocardiography (ICE), and fluoroscopy.

Methods: Patients with indications for LAAC were enrolled. Cardiac CT and TEE were done before the procedure; ICE and fluoroscopy measurements were done peri-procedurally. Multiplanar reconstruction of CT images, using FluoroCT software, was done, and optimal "personalized" viewing angles for fluoroscopy were determined. Moreover, a mean (using multiplanar CT reconstruction, derived from the LAA perimetr) amd maximum (using all four imaging modalitities) landing zone (LZ) of the LAA were masured.

Results: Twenty-five patients were analyzed. Despite significant correlation between LZs obtained from different imaging modalities, the values of LZs differed significantly; the mean LZ diameter on CT was 20.60 ± 3.42 mm, the maximum diameters were 21.99 ± 4.03 mm (CT), 18.72 ± 2.44 mm (TEE), 18.20 ± 2.68 mm (ICE), and 17.76 ± 3.24 mm (fluoroscopy). The mean CT diameter matched with the final device selection in 92% patients, while fluoroscopy or TEE maximum diameters in only 72% patients. Optimal viewing angles differed significantly from the fluoroscopy projections usually recommended by the manufacturer in 3 patients.

Conclusions: CT provides the best measurement of the LZ and the best prediction of the optimum fluoroscopy projections for the implantation procedure.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8691285PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.4022/jafib.20200449DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

viewing angles
12
intracardiac echocardiography
8
fluoroscopy
8
left atrial
8
atrial appendage
8
landing zone
8
multiplanar reconstruction
8
maximum diameters
8
fluoroscopy projections
8
comparison cardiac
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!