The Official Journal of EuroPCR and the European Association of Percutaneous Coronary Interventions (EAPCI)

Interventions for valvular disease and heart failure

Comparison of cardiac computed tomography angiography and transoesophageal echocardiography for device surveillance after left atrial appendage closure

EuroIntervention 2019;15:663-670. DOI: 10.4244/EIJ-D-18-01107

1. Department of Radiology, Vancouver General Hospital, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada; 2. Department of Cardiology, Vancouver General Hospital, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada

Aims: Device surveillance after left atrial appendage (LAA) closure (LAAC) is important to assess device positioning, peri-device leak (PDL) and device-related thrombus (DRT). There are limited data on the role of cardiac CT angiography (CCTA) after LAAC. We therefore sought to compare CCTA to transoesophageal echocardiography (TEE) in patients who successfully underwent LAAC.

Methods and results: We report our consecutive series of non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients who underwent LAAC and had CCTA and TEE post LAAC. Prospective cardiac-gated CCTA was performed with the Toshiba 320-detector or Siemens second-generation 128-slice dual-source scanner, and post-processing was performed with IMPAX 3D reformats. Glomerular filtration rate <30 mL/min/1.73 m² was an exclusion for CCTA. Device positioning, PDL or fabric leak, ratio of left atrial (LA) to LAA linear attenuation coefficient, and DRT were analysed. One hundred and two patients underwent LAAC (79 WATCHMAN, 17 Amulet, 6 ACP). Mean age was 76.4±7.5 years, CHADS2 score 3.0±1.3, and CHADS-VASc score 4.6±1.6. CCTA was performed at a mean of 105.2±54.8 days, and TEE at a mean of 124.9±100.3 days post LAAC. LAA patency was observed in 52/100 (52%), with 45 (86.5%) via PDL and seven (13.5%) through fabric leak. Linear attenuation coefficient <100 HU and LA:LAA ratio <0.25 were seen in occluded devices. PDL was only observed in 35/102 (34.3%) on TEE. Mean device compression was greater with sealed devices (11.3±4.3% versus 8.2±4.0%, p<0.001). There was only one DRT, which was observed on both TEE and CCTA.

Conclusions: CCTA is a suitable alternative to TEE for device surveillance post LAAC. CCTA was more sensitive than TEE for assessing PDL and can delineate the cause of residual LAA contrast patency.

Sign in to read and download the full article

Forgot your password?
No account yet? Sign up for free!
Create my pcr account

Join us for free and access thousands of articles from EuroIntervention, as well as presentations, videos, cases from PCRonline.com

Read next article

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement outcomes in patients with sarcopaenia