ReviewJournal of cardiovascular imaging2024
Preprocedural cardiac computed tomography versus transesophageal echocardiography for planning left atrial appendage occlusion procedures.
Review in Journal of cardiovascular imaging, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Endocardial Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion in Atrial Fibrillation: Device Design, Clinical Evidence, and Postprocedural Antithrombotic Management.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
- Inpatient cardiac computed tomography angiography in Germany between 2005 and 2023: a nationwide registry study.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2026Article
- The additive value of preprocedural cardiac computed tomography angiography (CCTA) planning in percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2026Review
- Cardiac Computed Tomography in Structural Heart Interventions: From Preprocedural Planning to Procedural Strategy.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Review
- Interpretable Model for Clinical Use in Left Atrial Appendage Segmentation via an Optimised Deformable-Attention U-Net With Spatial-Channel Fusion.Healthcare technology lettersArticle
- Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion in Cancer-Associated Atrial Fibrillation: Who, When, and How to Manage Antithrombotic Therapy.Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/HemostasisReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The heterogeneous anatomy of the left atrial appendage (LAA) necessitates preprocedural imaging essential for planning of percutaneous LAA occlusion (LAAO) procedures. While transoesophageal echocardiography (TOE) remains the gold standard, cardiac computed tomography (CT) is becoming increasingly popular. To address the lack of consensus on the optimal imaging modality, we compared the outcomes of preprocedural TOE versus CT for LAAO procedure planning. A retrospective single-center cohort study of all LAAO procedures was performed to compare the outcomes of patients receiving preprocedural TOE versus those receiving CT. The primary outcome was procedural success and rate of major adverse events. The secondary outcomes were total procedure time, rate of device size change, and maximum landing zone diameter. A total of 64 patients was included. Of these, 25 (39.1%) underwent TOE and 39 (60.9%) underwent CT. There was no significant difference in the procedural success rate (96.0% vs. 100%, P = 0.39) or major adverse event rate (4.0% vs. 5.1%, P > 0.99) between TOE and CT patients. Compared with TOE, CT was associated with significantly shorter median procedure time (103 min vs. 124 min, P = 0.02) and a lower rate of device size change (7.7% vs. 28.0%, P = 0.04). Compared to CT, TOE was associated with a significantly smaller mean maximum landing zone diameter (20.8 mm vs. 25.8 mm, P < 0.01) and a higher rate of device upsizing (24.0% vs. 2.6%, P = 0.01). No significant difference in detected residual leak rates was found between TOE and CT (50.0% vs. 52.2%, P > 0.99). Planning of LAAO procedures with CT is associated with a shorter total procedure time and a lower rate of device size change and is less likely to underestimate the maximum landing zone diameter.
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.