--LAA Occluder View for post-implantation Evaluation (LOVE)--standardized imaging proposal evaluating implanted left atrial appendage occlusion devices by cardiac computed tomography

Michael Behnes, Ibrahim Akin, Benjamin Sartorius, Christian Fastner, Ibrahim El-Battrawy, Martin Borggrefe, Holger Haubenreisser, Mathias Meyer, Stefan O Schoenberg, Thomas Henzler, Michael Behnes, Ibrahim Akin, Benjamin Sartorius, Christian Fastner, Ibrahim El-Battrawy, Martin Borggrefe, Holger Haubenreisser, Mathias Meyer, Stefan O Schoenberg, Thomas Henzler

Abstract

Background: A standardized imaging proposal evaluating implanted left atrial appendage (LAA) occlusion devices by cardiac computed tomography angiography (cCTA) has never been investigated.

Methods: cCTA datasets were acquired on a 3(rd) generation dual-source CT system and reconstructed with a slice thickness of 0.5 mm. An interdisciplinary evaluation was performed by two interventional cardiologists and one radiologist on a 3D multi-planar workstation. A standardized multi-planar reconstruction algorithm was developed in order to assess relevant clinical aspects of implanted LAA occlusion devices being outlined within a pictorial essay.

Results: The following clinical aspects of implanted LAA occlusion devices were evaluated within the most appropriate cCTA multi-planar reconstruction: (1) topography to neighboring structures, (2) peri-device leaks, (3) coverage of LAA lobes, (4) indirect signs of neo-endothelialization. These are illustrated within concise CT imaging examples emphasizing the potential value of the proposed cCTA imaging algorithm: Starting from anatomical cCTA planes and stepwise angulation planes perpendicular to the base of the LAA devices generates an optimal LAA Occluder View for post-implantation Evaluation (LOVE). Aligned true axial, sagittal and coronal LOVE planes offer a standardized and detailed evaluation of LAA occlusion devices after percutaneous implantation.

Conclusions: This pictorial essay presents a standardized imaging proposal by cCTA using multi-planar reconstructions that enables systematical follow-up and comparison of patients after LAA occlusion device implantation.

Keywords: Cardiac CTA; LAA occluder; LAA occlusion device; Lobe coverage; Neo-endothelialization; Peri-device leak; Thrombus.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Illustration of a stepwise standard multimodal imaging to generating optimal LAA Occluder View for post-implantation Evaluation (LOVE) planes from anatomical cCTA planes. Figure shows 5 standardized steps (panels I-V) for the ACP® device
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Illustration of a stepwise standard multimodal imaging to generating optimal LAA Occluder View for post-implantation Evaluation (LOVE) planes from anatomical cCTA planes. Figure shows 5 standardized steps (panels I-V) for the WATCHMAN® device
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
LOVE coronal (panel a) and sagittal (panel b) reformations demonstrating the anatomic relationship to relevant neighboring structures that should be reported. Panel a shows the close anatomic relationship to the left upper pulmonary vein (LUPV) and the left circumflex coronary artery (LCX) that is adjacent directly to the LAA occlusion device (* in panels a and b). The pulmonary artery (PA) is the third relatively close neighboring structure that should be inspected carefully on LOVE axial reformations
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
The figure summarizes schematically the four main follow-up scenarios on cardiac CTA after LAA occlusion device implantation. Panel a demonstrates optimal positioning of the LAA occlusion device without any residual lobe, any peri-device leak and without any residual contrast filling (blue dots in LAA) indicating complete neo-endothelialization. Panel b demonstrates a peri-device leak with contrast filling of the LAA. Panel c shows sub-optimal positioning of the LAA occlusion device with in-complete lobe coverage leaving a residual left atrial appendage. Panel d shows optimal positioning of the LAA occlusion device with in-complete neo-endothelialization that is suggested indirectly by the contrast enhancement of the LAA (blue dots in LAA). Please note that all three scenarios can occur in combination. In case of an existing peri-device leak with contrast filling of the LAA assessment of endothelialization is not feasible with cardiac CT
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
LOVE - axial (panel a), − sagittal (panel b), - coronal (panel c), and 3D (panel d) reformations of a 72 year-old male patient who underwent cardiac CTA 9 months after implantation of a ACP® LAA occlusion device. Panels a, b, and c show optimal positioning of the device with no peri-device leak, complete lobe coverage as well as complete neo-endothelialization of the device suggested by the absence of contrast enhancement < 50 Hounsfield units in the LAA (* in B and C). Volume rendered reconstructions
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
LOVE - axial (panel a), − sagittal (panel b), and - coronal (panel c) reformations of a 80-year-old male patient who underwent cardiac CTA 8 months after implantation of a WATCHMAN® LAA occlusion device. Panels a and c show a small peri-device leak <3 mm at the cranial LAA entry causing complete contrast filling of the LAA (white arrow). Panel b demonstrates the correct positioning of the device with complete lobe coverage, as indicated by the correctly positioned sealing part (proximal cap of the WM device) parallel to the plane of the LAA ostium (red line). Due to the presence of the peri-device leak the assessment of endothelialization is not feasible with cardiac CTA
Fig. 7
Fig. 7
LOVE - axial (panel a), − sagittal (panel b), and - coronal (panel c) reformations of a 83-year-old female patient who underwent cardiac CTA 9 months after implantation of the ACP® LAA occlusion device. Panels a, b and, c demonstrate no peri-device leak. Panel b shows incomplete lobe coverage with a small residual LAA lobe. The uncovered LAA lobe is seen between the angle of the sealing part of the ACP device (proximal disk) and the plane of the LAA ostium (angle in between red lines, marked by white arrow). The contrast filling of the LAA in combination with the clear absence of a peri-device leak reflects indirectly in-complete endothelialization of the ACP® LAA occlusion device
Fig. 8
Fig. 8
LOVE - axial (panel a), − sagittal (panel b), and - coronal (panel c) reformations of a 75-year-old male patient who underwent cardiac CTA 4 months after implantation of a WATCHMAN® LAA occlusion device. Panel a shows a 20° offset of the device around the entry axis to the LAA (red line in A). The rotation led to an in-complete lobe coverage with a small residual left atrial appendage < 5 mm that is best seen on the LOVE coronal reformation (arrow in panel c). The residual slight contrast enhancement (* in panels a and b) of the LAA that is approximately 50 % lower when compared to the contrast enhancement in the left atrium suggests beginning, but still in-complete neo-endothelialization of the device

References

    1. Watson T, Shantsila E, Lip GY. Mechanisms of thrombogenesis in atrial fibrillation: Virchow’s triad revisited. Lancet. 2009;373(9658):155–66. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60040-4.
    1. Bergmann MW, Landmesser U. Left atrial appendage closure for stroke prevention in non-valvular atrial fibrillation: rationale, devices in clinical development and insights into implantation techniques. EuroIntervention. 2014;10(4):497–504. doi: 10.4244/EIJV10I4A86.
    1. Camm AJ, et al. 2012 focused update of the ESC Guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation: an update of the 2010 ESC Guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation. Developed with the special contribution of the European Heart Rhythm Association. Eur Heart J. 2012;33(21):2719–47. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehs253.
    1. Alli O, et al. Quality of life assessment in the randomized PROTECT AF (Percutaneous Closure of the Left Atrial Appendage Versus Warfarin Therapy for Prevention of Stroke in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation) trial of patients at risk for stroke with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61(17):1790–8. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2013.01.061.
    1. Bayard YL, et al. PLAATO (Percutaneous Left Atrial Appendage Transcatheter Occlusion) for prevention of cardioembolic stroke in non-anticoagulation eligible atrial fibrillation patients: results from the European PLAATO study. EuroIntervention. 2010;6(2):220–6. doi: 10.4244/EIJV6I2A35.
    1. Nietlispach F, et al. Amplatzer left atrial appendage occlusion: single center 10-year experience. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;82(2):283–9. doi: 10.1002/ccd.24872.
    1. Reddy VY, et al. Left atrial appendage closure with the Watchman device in patients with a contraindication for oral anticoagulation: the ASAP study (ASA Plavix Feasibility Study With Watchman Left Atrial Appendage Closure Technology) J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61(25):2551–6. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2013.03.035.
    1. Urena M, et al. Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure with the AMPLATZER cardiac plug device in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and contraindications to anticoagulation therapy. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;62(2):96–102. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2013.02.089.
    1. Wiebe J, et al. Safety of percutaneous left atrial appendage closure with the amplatzer cardiac plug in patients with atrial fibrillation and contraindications to anticoagulation. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;83(5):796–802. doi: 10.1002/ccd.25329.
    1. Holmes DR, Jr, et al. Prospective randomized evaluation of the Watchman Left Atrial Appendage Closure device in patients with atrial fibrillation versus long-term warfarin therapy: the PREVAIL trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64(1):1–12. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2014.04.029.
    1. Anselmino M, et al. Left atrial appendage morphology and silent cerebral ischemia in patients with atrial fibrillation. Heart Rhythm. 2014;11(1):2–7. doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2013.10.020.
    1. Di Biase L, et al. Does the left atrial appendage morphology correlate with the risk of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation? Results from a multicenter study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60(6):531–8. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2012.04.032.
    1. Laura DM, et al. The role of multimodality imaging in percutaneous left atrial appendage suture ligation with the LARIAT device. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2014;27(7):699–708. doi: 10.1016/j.echo.2014.04.014.
    1. Lopez-Minguez JR, et al. Anatomical Classification of Left Atrial Appendages in Specimens Applicable to CT Imaging Techniques for Implantation of Amplatzer Cardiac Plug. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2014;25(9):976–84. doi: 10.1111/jce.12429.
    1. Holmes DR, et al. Percutaneous closure of the left atrial appendage versus warfarin therapy for prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation: a randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2009;374(9689):534–42. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61343-X.
    1. Reddy VY, et al. Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure for stroke prophylaxis in patients with atrial fibrillation: 2.3-Year Follow-up of the PROTECT AF (Watchman Left Atrial Appendage System for Embolic Protection in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation) Trial. Circulation. 2013;127(6):720–9. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.112.114389.
    1. Viles-Gonzalez JF, et al. The clinical impact of incomplete left atrial appendage closure with the Watchman Device in patients with atrial fibrillation: a PROTECT AF (Percutaneous Closure of the Left Atrial Appendage Versus Warfarin Therapy for Prevention of Stroke in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation) substudy. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59(10):923–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2011.11.028.
    1. Viles-Gonzalez JF, et al. Incomplete occlusion of the left atrial appendage with the percutaneous left atrial appendage transcatheter occlusion device is not associated with increased risk of stroke. J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2012;33(1):69–75. doi: 10.1007/s10840-011-9613-x.
    1. Anter E, et al. Comparison of intracardiac echocardiography and transesophageal echocardiography for imaging of the right and left atrial appendages. Heart Rhythm. 2014.
    1. Kar S, et al. Impact of Watchman and Amplatzer Devices on Left Atrial Appendage Adjacent Structures and Healing Response in a Canine Model. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;7(7):801–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2014.03.003.
    1. Mahesh M, Cody DD. Physics of cardiac imaging with multiple-row detector CT. Radiographics. 2007;27(5):1495–509. doi: 10.1148/rg.275075045.
    1. Schoepf UJ, et al. CT coronary angiography: indications, image acquisition, and interpretation. Radiologia. 2008;50(2):113–30. doi: 10.1016/S0033-8338(08)71945-3.
    1. Weininger M, et al. Cardiothoracic CT angiography: current contrast medium delivery strategies. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196(3):W260–72. doi: 10.2214/AJR.10.5814.
    1. Xu L, Zhang Z. Coronary CT angiography with low radiation dose. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2010;26(Suppl 1):17–25. doi: 10.1007/s10554-009-9576-5.
    1. Henzler T, et al. Practical strategies for low radiation dose cardiac computed tomography. J Thorac Imaging. 2010;25(3):213–20. doi: 10.1097/RTI.0b013e3181ec9096.
    1. Ebersberger U, et al. CT evaluation of coronary artery stents with iterative image reconstruction: improvements in image quality and potential for radiation dose reduction. Eur Radiol. 2013;23(1):125–32. doi: 10.1007/s00330-012-2580-5.
    1. Moscariello A, et al. Coronary CT angiography: image quality, diagnostic accuracy, and potential for radiation dose reduction using a novel iterative image reconstruction technique-comparison with traditional filtered back projection. Eur Radiol. 2011;21(10):2130–8. doi: 10.1007/s00330-011-2164-9.
    1. Renker M, et al. Evaluation of heavily calcified vessels with coronary CT angiography: comparison of iterative and filtered back projection image reconstruction. Radiology. 2011;260(2):390–9. doi: 10.1148/radiol.11103574.
    1. Corporation, B.S. WATCHMAN™ 12 F Left Atrial Appendage Closure Device with Delivery System. 2014; Instruction for Use]. Available from: .
    1. Neuzner J, et al. Left atrial appendage closure with the Amplatzer Cardiac Plug: Rationale for a higher degree of device oversizing at implantation. Cardiol J. 2015;22(2):201–5. doi: 10.5603/CJ.a2014.0063.
    1. Sepahpour A, et al. Death from pulmonary artery erosion complicating implantation of percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion device. Heart Rhythm. 2013;10(12):1810–1. doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2013.07.046.
    1. Romero J, et al. Detection of left atrial appendage thrombus by cardiac computed tomography in patients with atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013;6(2):185–94. doi: 10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.112.000153.
    1. Hur J, et al. Cardioembolic stroke: dual-energy cardiac CT for differentiation of left atrial appendage thrombus and circulatory stasis. Radiology. 2012;263(3):688–95. doi: 10.1148/radiol.12111691.

Source: PubMed

3
Iratkozz fel