Published in:
01-08-2020 | Transthoracic Echocardiography
Impact of left atrial appendage occlusion on left atrial function—The LAFIT Watchman study
Authors:
Ghulam Murtaza, Venkat Vuddanda, Krishna Akella, Domenico G. Della Rocca, Sharan Sharma, Ling Li, Shelby Kutty, Mohit Turagam, Saibal Kar, David Holmes, Dhanunjaya Lakkireddy
Published in:
Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology
|
Issue 2/2020
Login to get access
Abstract
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.