TY - JOUR
T1 - Impact of left atrial appendage occlusion on left atrial function—The LAFIT Watchman study
AU - Murtaza, Ghulam
AU - Vuddanda, Venkat
AU - Akella, Krishna
AU - Della Rocca, Domenico G.
AU - Sharma, Sharan
AU - Li, Ling
AU - Kutty, Shelby
AU - Turagam, Mohit
AU - Kar, Saibal
AU - Holmes, David
AU - Lakkireddy, Dhanunjaya
N1 - Funding Information:
All authors aside from DL, DH, and SK have no conflicts of interest to report. DL received speaker honorarium from Boston Scientific and PI for AMAZE clinical study. DH is a paid consultant to Boston Scientific. SK receives support from the American Heart Association and the Children’s Hospital.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2019, Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.
PY - 2020/8/1
Y1 - 2020/8/1
N2 - Background: Left atrial (LA) strain and strain rate (SR) analysis by two-dimensional speckle tracking echocardiography is a novel way of LA function assessment. From prior study, we know that LA appendage closure with LARIAT appears to improve LA function. Objective: The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of LAA closure via Watchman device on LA function via strain and volumetric analyses using two-dimensional speckle tracking echocardiography (2D-STE). Methods: Twenty-five patients who underwent Watchman device implantation (WDI) were included. LA function parameters (volumetric, strain indices) were calculated from apical four chamber views with the reference point set at QRS using 2D-STE before and after WDI. LA expansion index, strain and strain rate during ventricular systole represent LA reservoir function. Passive emptying fraction, strain and strain rate during early ventricular diastole represent LA conduit function. Results: Mean age was 76 ± 6.9 years with 60% males. There was significant improvement in conduit function (LA passive emptying fraction; post 28.6 (21.9–35.9) vs pre 21.0 (13.8–34.7), p = 0.032), reservoir function (LA expansion index; post 75.3 (52.3–98.0) vs pre 58.1 (37.8–85.2), p = 0.026), and booster function (LA active emptying fraction; post 13.3 (9.7–29.9) vs pre 12.6 (8.8–25.5), p = 0.04) by volumetric indices. No significant improvement was noted with strain indices in conduit function (SRe; post − 0.56 (0.43–0.93) vs pre − 0.58 (0.46–0.87); p = 0.518) and reservoir function (SRs; post + 0.58 (0.28–0.40) vs pre + 0.52 (0.35–0.86); p = 0.851). Conclusions: WDI resulted in discrepancy of volumetric and strain indices in LA function assessment.
AB - Background: Left atrial (LA) strain and strain rate (SR) analysis by two-dimensional speckle tracking echocardiography is a novel way of LA function assessment. From prior study, we know that LA appendage closure with LARIAT appears to improve LA function. Objective: The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of LAA closure via Watchman device on LA function via strain and volumetric analyses using two-dimensional speckle tracking echocardiography (2D-STE). Methods: Twenty-five patients who underwent Watchman device implantation (WDI) were included. LA function parameters (volumetric, strain indices) were calculated from apical four chamber views with the reference point set at QRS using 2D-STE before and after WDI. LA expansion index, strain and strain rate during ventricular systole represent LA reservoir function. Passive emptying fraction, strain and strain rate during early ventricular diastole represent LA conduit function. Results: Mean age was 76 ± 6.9 years with 60% males. There was significant improvement in conduit function (LA passive emptying fraction; post 28.6 (21.9–35.9) vs pre 21.0 (13.8–34.7), p = 0.032), reservoir function (LA expansion index; post 75.3 (52.3–98.0) vs pre 58.1 (37.8–85.2), p = 0.026), and booster function (LA active emptying fraction; post 13.3 (9.7–29.9) vs pre 12.6 (8.8–25.5), p = 0.04) by volumetric indices. No significant improvement was noted with strain indices in conduit function (SRe; post − 0.56 (0.43–0.93) vs pre − 0.58 (0.46–0.87); p = 0.518) and reservoir function (SRs; post + 0.58 (0.28–0.40) vs pre + 0.52 (0.35–0.86); p = 0.851). Conclusions: WDI resulted in discrepancy of volumetric and strain indices in LA function assessment.
KW - Left atrial appendage
KW - Speckle tracking echocardiography
KW - Strain analysis
KW - Watchman device
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85076589608&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85076589608&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s10840-019-00674-0
DO - 10.1007/s10840-019-00674-0
M3 - Article
C2 - 31823234
AN - SCOPUS:85076589608
SN - 1383-875X
VL - 58
SP - 163
EP - 167
JO - Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology
JF - Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology
IS - 2
ER -