| Autor: |
Obasare E; Einstein Heart and Vascular Institute, Einstein Medical Center, 5501 Old York Road, Philadelphia, PA, 19141, USA. ObasareE@einstein.edu.; Einstein Medical Center, 5501 Old York Road, Room 3232 Levy Building, Philadelphia, PA, 19141, USA. ObasareE@einstein.edu., Mainigi SK; Einstein Heart and Vascular Institute, Einstein Medical Center, 5501 Old York Road, Philadelphia, PA, 19141, USA., Morris DL; Einstein Heart and Vascular Institute, Einstein Medical Center, 5501 Old York Road, Philadelphia, PA, 19141, USA., Slipczuk L; Einstein Heart and Vascular Institute, Einstein Medical Center, 5501 Old York Road, Philadelphia, PA, 19141, USA., Goykhman I; Department of Radiology, Einstein Medical Center, 5501 Old York Road, Philadelphia, PA, 19141, USA., Friend E; Einstein Heart and Vascular Institute, Einstein Medical Center, 5501 Old York Road, Philadelphia, PA, 19141, USA., Ziccardi MR; Department of Internal Medicine, Einstein Medical Center, 5501 Old York Road, Philadelphia, PA, 19141, USA., Pressman GS; Einstein Heart and Vascular Institute, Einstein Medical Center, 5501 Old York Road, Philadelphia, PA, 19141, USA. |
| Abstrakt: |
Accurate assessment of the left atrial appendage (LAA) is important for pre-procedure planning when utilizing device closure for stroke reduction. Sizing is traditionally done with transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) but this is not always precise. Three-dimensional (3D) printing of the LAA may be more accurate. 24 patients underwent Watchman device (WD) implantation (71 ± 11 years, 42% female). All had complete 2-dimensional TEE. Fourteen also had cardiac computed tomography (CCT) with 3D printing to produce a latex model of the LAA for pre-procedure planning. Device implantation was unsuccessful in 2 cases (one with and one without a 3D model). The model correlated perfectly with implanted device size (R 2 = 1; p < 0.001), while TEE-predicted size showed inferior correlation (R 2 = 0.34; 95% CI 0.23-0.98, p = 0.03). Fisher's exact test showed the model better predicted final WD size than TEE (100 vs. 60%, p = 0.02). Use of the model was associated with reduced procedure time (70 ± 20 vs. 107 ± 53 min, p = 0.03), anesthesia time (134 ± 31 vs. 182 ± 61 min, p = 0.03), and fluoroscopy time (11 ± 4 vs. 20 ± 13 min, p = 0.02). Absence of peri-device leak was also more likely when the model was used (92 vs. 56%, p = 0.04). There were trends towards reduced trans-septal puncture to catheter removal time (50 ± 20 vs. 73 ± 36 min, p = 0.07), number of device deployments (1.3 ± 0.5 vs. 2.0 ± 1.2, p = 0.08), and number of devices used (1.3 ± 0.5 vs. 1.9 ± 0.9, p = 0.07). Patient specific models of the LAA improve precision in closure device sizing. Use of the printed model allowed rapid and intuitive location of the best landing zone for the device. |
Full text from SpringerLink