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
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/PMC8691285 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.4022/jafib.20200449 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!