ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2023
The effect of two different methods of planning landing zone for left atrial appendage closure by cardiac computed tomography angiography: a comparative study.
Article in Annals of translational medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: To explore the value of 2 different methods for planning landing zone for left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) by cardiac computed tomography angiography (CCTA). Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed on the clinical data of patients who successfully underwent LAAC with the Watchman device at The Affiliated Taizhou People's Hospital of Nanjing Medical University from August 2020 to February 2022. Two different methods were used to plan the landing zone and measure the longest diameter, average diameter, depth, and perimeter of the landing zone. The difference between the 2 methods and the correlation between their measurements and occluder size were analyzed. Results: A total of 66 patients undergoing LAAC were included, with an average age of 69.35±7.1 years, of whom 30 (45.5%) were women. The mean error between the longest diameter measured by the traditional method and the actual value was 2.90±2.83 mm, and the mean absolute error (MAE) was 2.71 (1.17, 4.38) mm. The mean error between the longest diameter measured by the new method and the actual value was 0.9 (-0.13, 2.50) mm, and its MAE was 1.4 (0.40, 2.53) mm. The error of the longest diameter measured by the traditional method was larger than that measured by the new method (P<0.001). The mean error between the depth measured by the traditional method and the actual value was 1.40±3.45 mm, and the MAE was 2.36 (0.74, 4.58) mm. The mean error between the depth measured by the new method and the actual value was 0.10 (-1.33, 1.95) mm, and the MAE was 1.55 (0.60, 3.10) mm. Likewise, the depth error measured by the traditional method was larger than that measured by the new method (P<0.05). The correlation between the perimeter and the size of the occluder was the strongest (r=0.919, P<0.001). Conclusions: With CCTA, the new method is more accurate in planning landing zone than the traditional method. It is particularly important to select the occluder size for the patients with flat oval landing zone ostium.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.