Transesophageal echocardiography versus intracardiac echocardiography-guided left atrial appendage occlusion: a comparative analysis. (14th October 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Grazina, A; Fiarresga, A; Ramos, R; Sousa, L; Cacela, D; Bernardes, L; Branco, L M; Galrinho, A; Viegas, J M; Cardoso, I; Teixeira, B; Teixeira, A R; Jacinto, S; Cruz Ferreira, R
• Is Part Of: European heart journal. Volume 42(2021)Supplement 1
• Publication Date: 2021-10-14
• Subjects: Left Atrial Appendage (LAA) Closure; Cardiology -- Periodicals; Heart -- Diseases -- Periodicals; 616.12005
• DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehab724.2234
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0195-668X

Abstract

Abstract: Introduction: The left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) procedure is a therapeutic option for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) which have contraindication to oral anticoagulants or still develop embolic events despite therapeutic anticoagulation. Transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) has been the gold standard to guide this procedure, with the intracardiac echocardiography (ICE) emerging as an alternative because of the advantage of reducing the general anesthesia burden compared to TEE. Objectives: This study aims to compare the safety, procedure-related parameters and outcomes between TEE-guided LAAO and ICE-guided LAAO. Methods: In a tertiary center, patients who underwent TEE-guided LAAO and ICE-guided LAAO were compared retrospectively regarding technical success, procedure-related events, procedure-related parameters (fluoroscopy time, dose of radiation and contrast volume), 45 days-transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) and 1-year outcomes (mortality, stroke and major bleeding). Results: 88 patients underwent LAAO between 2009 and 2020 (n=43 with TEE, n=45 with ICE). Baseline characteristics were similar. Success was achieved in 95.3% (n=41) and 95.6% (n=43) of the patients in the TEE and ICE groups, respectively (OR 0.95, p=0.96). Procedure-related complications (major vascular complications, perforation, device embolization) didn't show significant differences (14.0% vs 8.9%, OR 1.66, p=0.46) in the TEE and ICE groups, respectively. Fluoroscopy time was inferior in the TEE group (29.1±13.6 vs 44.1±17.4 minutes, p=0.001), while radiation dose (2761±1555 vs 3397±2118 mGy, p=0.113) and contrast volume (220.3±104.1 vs 204.0±100.9mL, p=0.469) showed no significant differences. 45 days-TTE showed no significant differences between the TEE and ICE groups regarding peri-device leaks (14.0% vs 24.4%, p=0.212), device thrombus (2.3% vs 0%, p=0.990) and iatrogenic atrial septal defects, all mild (4.7% vs 13.3%, p=0.174). 1-year outcomes showed no significant differences regarding stroke (9.3% vs 4.4%, p=0.186), major bleeding (9.3% vs 2.2%, p=0.78) and all-cause mortality (9.3% vs 11.1%, p=0.38) between the TEE and ICE groups, respectively. Conclusions: ICE-guided LAAO is associated with similar results, procedure-related events, procedure related-parameters (fluoroscopy time being the only exception) and 1-year outcomes, compared with TEE-guided LAAO. Funding Acknowledgement: Type of funding sources: None.