Accuracy of Commonly-Used Imaging Modalities in Assessing Left Atrial Appendage for Interventional Closure: Review Article

Periprocedural imaging assessment for percutaneous Left Atrial Appendage (LAA) transcatheter occlusion can be obtained by utilizing different imaging modalities including fluoroscopy, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computed tomography (CT), and ultrasound imaging. Given the complex and variable morphology of the left atrial appendage, it is crucial to obtain the most accurate LAA dimensions to prevent intra-procedural device changes, recapture maneuvers, and prolonged procedure time. We therefore sought to examine the accuracy of the most commonly utilized imaging modalities in LAA occlusion. Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval was waived as we only reviewed published data. By utilizing PUBMED which is an integrated online website to list the published literature based on its relevance, we retrieved thirty-two articles on the accuracy of most commonly used imaging modalities for pre-procedural assessment of the left atrial appendage morphology, namely, two-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography, three-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography, computed tomography, and three-dimensional printing. There is strong evidence that real-time three-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography is more accurate than two-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography. Three-dimensional computed tomography has recently emerged as an imaging modality and it showed exceptional accuracy when merged with three-dimensional printing technology. However, real time three-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography may be considered the preferred imaging modality as it can provide accurate measurements without requiring radiation exposure or contrast administration. We will present the most common imaging modality used for LAA assessment and will provide an algorithmic approach including preprocedural, periprocedural, intraprocedural, and postprocedural

Hospital outcomes of patients receiving catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation, left atrial appendage closure, or both

Background: Catheter ablation (CA) and left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) require transseptal access; combining both in a single procedure may have advantages. However, the safety of this approach has not been extensively studied. The objective of this study was to compare in hospital outcomes among patients receiving CA, LAAC, and combination of both treatments on the same day. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of the National Inpatient Sample database. The primary outcome was the presence of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) during index hospitalization. Secondary outcomes included stroke, pericardial effusion, pericardiocentesis, and bleeding. Results: A total of 69,285 hospitalizations with AF were included in the analysis, of which 71.7% received LAAC, 27.8% received CA, and 0.5% received combination of both treatments on the same day. MACEE (OR, 1.63; 95% CI, 0.39–6.70), stroke (OR, 2.98; 95% CI, 0.55–16.01), pericardial effusion (OR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.07–1.41), pericardiocentesis (OR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.25–3.86), and bleeding (OR, 3.25; 95% CI, 0.87–12.07) did not differ significantly between CA and combination treatment. Similarly, MACCE (OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.28–4.41), stroke (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.24–4.35), pericardial effusion (OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.11–1.90), pericardiocentesis (OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.14–2.83), and bleeding (OR, 2.04; 95% CI, 0.65–6.39) did not differ significantly between LAAC and combination treatment. Conclusions: The combined approach is infrequently used in clinical practice (\u3c 1%). However, major life-threatening adverse events did not differ between CA and LAAC when performed in isolation or combined in a single procedural stage on the same day

Tacrolimus and Mycophenolate Mofetil as Second-Line Therapies for Pediatric Patients with Autoimmune Hepatitis

Background: We studied the efficacy and safety of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and tacrolimus as second-line therapy in pediatric patients with autoimmune hepatitis (AIH) who were intolerant or non-responders to standard therapy (corticosteroid and azathioprine). Patients and Methods: We performed a retrospective study of data from 13 centers in Europe, USA, and Canada. Thirty-eight patients (< 18\ua0years old) who received second-line therapy (18 MMF and 20 tacrolimus), for a median of 72\ua0months (range 8\u2013182) were evaluated. Patients were categorized into two groups: Group 1 (n = 17) were intolerant to corticosteroid or azathioprine, and group 2 (n = 21) were non-responders to standard therapy. Results: Overall complete response rates were similar in patients treated with MMF and tacrolimus (55.6 vs. 65%, p = 0.552). In group 1, MMF and tacrolimus maintained a biochemical remission in 88.9 and 87.5% of patients, respectively (p = 0.929). More patients in group 2 given tacrolimus compared to MMF had a complete response, but the difference was not statistically significant (50.0 vs. 22.2%, p = 0.195). Biochemical remission was achieved in 71.1% (27/38) of patients by tacrolimus and/or MMF. Decompensated cirrhosis was more commonly seen in MMF and/or tacrolimus non-responders than in responders (45.5 vs. 7.4%, p = 0.006). Five patients who received second-line therapy (2 MMF and 3 tacrolimus) developed side effects that led to therapy withdrawal. Conclusions: Long-term therapy with MMF or tacrolimus was generally well tolerated by pediatric patients with AIH. Both MMF and tacrolimus had excellent efficacy in patients intolerant to corticosteroid or azathioprine. Tacrolimus might be more effective than MMF in patients failing previous therapy