Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging for left atrial appendage closure planning

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundTransesophageal echocardiography (TEE) and cardiac computed tomography angiography (CCTA) are currently utilized for left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) planning. During the recent global iodine contrast media shortage in 2022, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) was utilized for the first time for LAAC planning. This study sought to assess the utility of CMR versus TEE for LAAC planning.MethodsThis single center retrospective study consisted of all patients who underwent preoperative CMR for LAAC with Watchman FLX or Amplatzer Amulet. Key measures were accuracy of LAA thrombus exclusion, ostial diameter, depth, lobe count, morphology, accuracy of predicted device size, and devices deployed per case. Bland‐Altman Analysis was used to compare CMR versus TEE measurements of LAA ostial diameter and depth.Results25 patients underwent preoperative CMR for LAAC planning. A total of 24 (96%) cases were successfully completed with 1.2 ± 0.5 devices deployed per case. Among the 18 patients who underwent intraoperative TEE, there was no significant difference between CMR versus TEE in LAA thrombus exclusion (CMR 83% vs. TEE 100% cases, p = .229), lobe count (CMR 1.7 ± 0.8 vs. TEE 1.4 ± 0.6, p = .177), morphology (p = .422), and accuracy of predicted device size (CMR 67% vs. TEE 72% cases, p = 1.000). When comparing the difference between CMR and TEE measurements, Bland‐Altman analysis demonstrated no significant difference in LAA ostial diameter (CMR‐TEE bias 0.7 mm, 95% CI [−1.1, 2.4], p = .420), but LAA depth was significantly larger with CMR versus TEE (CMR‐TEE bias 7.4 mm, 95% CI [1.6, 13.2], p = .015).ConclusionsCMR is a promising alternative for LAAC planning in cases where TEE or CCTA are contraindicated or unavailable.