ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2025
A novel method using body surface steel ball as a reference scale to measure the left atrial appendage for optimal selection of Watchman device.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2025. 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.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) is an alternative to oral anticoagulation for stroke prevention in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF). Selecting the appropriate size of Watchman device is very important intra-procedure. There are several methods have been reported to measure the left atrial appendage (LAA), but each of them has its limitations. Objective: We investigated the efficacy and safety of using the novel "steel ball method" compared to using the traditional "sheath method" and TEE during procedure of LAAC with Watchman device in AF patients. Methods: Patients with atrial fibrillation who underwent LAAC with Watchman device at The First Affiliated Hospital of Ningbo University from January 2018 to December 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. A 10 mm-diameter steel ball was placed on patient's body surface at the pulmonary valve auscultation zone before procedure. The maximum LAA ostium diameter, maximum LAA depth, and 1st sheath marker band length were measured under x-ray fluoroscopy, using the delivery sheath, pigtail sheath, and steel ball as references, respectively, which we called the delivery sheath group, pigtail sheath group and steel ball group. The maximum LAA ostium diameter and maximum LAA depth were also measured by TEE. All Watchman devices were selected based on the measurement of LAA by "steel ball method". The position of Watchman device and presence of peri-device leakage (PDL) were assessed using transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) before and after the release. Results: Eventually a total of 169 patients [63.3% male, age 69 (44-87) years, 73.4% persistent or permanent AF, CHA2DS2-VASc score 4.31 ± 1.54, HAS-BLED score 2.74 ± 1.15, left atrial diameter 44.09 ± 7.55 mm] underwent Watchman device implantation successfully were enrolled. The mean maximum LAA ostium diameter measured in steel ball group (24.73 ± 3.39 mm) was significantly higher than that in delivery sheath group (20.04 ± 3.24 mm, Conclusions: In LAAC, the novel method using body surface steel ball as a reference scale to measure the left atrial appendage and guide the selection of Watchman device is accurate, effective, and safe. The size of Watchman device may be too small if selection is based on the measurement results with "sheath method", which can lead to unsatisfactory outcome of the procedure.
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.