Reproducibility of tissue Doppler parameters of asynchrony in patients with advanced LV dysfunction.

AIMS: To assess the reproducibility of tissue Doppler myocardial velocities in patients with dilated ventricles and markedly reduced systolic function (ejection fraction <35%). METHODS AND RESULTS: Forty-one patients referred for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) were evaluated using tissue Doppler echocardiography. The inter and intra-individual reproducibility of peak systolic myocardial velocities and the intra-ventricular delay in three apical projections was assessed by repeated evaluation of each registered data set. Variability (measured by the coefficient of variation) ranged between 18 and 56% for the peak systolic velocities and between 32 and 117% for the time intervals. CONCLUSION: The reproducibility of the tissue Doppler echocardiography parameters (peak systolic myocardial velocity and intra-ventricular delay) was poor in our set of patients with dilated left ventricles and low ejection fraction. The most probable causes of our poor results are discussed including the missing standardization of the TDI measurements.

Use of intracardiac echocardiography to guide implantation of a left atrial appendage occlusion device (PLAATO).

BACKGROUND: Over 90% of thrombi in atrial fibrillation (AF) originate from the left atrial appendage (LAA). Patients with contraindications to anticoagulation are potential candidates for LAA occlusion using the Percutaneous Left Atrial Appendage Transcatheter Occlusion system (PLAATO, ev3 Inc., Plymouth, MN). Transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) is typically used to guide implantation. OBJECTIVE: This study sought to examine the utility of intracardiac echocardiography (ICE) in providing adequate imaging guidance as an alternative to TEE during PLAATO implantation. METHODS: The study group consisted of 10 patients who underwent PLAATO implantation with simultaneous TEE and ICE imaging guidance. ICE was used to perform the following tasks typically fulfilled by TEE: (1) verification of the absence of LAA thrombus, (2) identification of the LAA ostial dimension for device sizing, (3) guidance of transseptal puncture, (4) verification of the delivery sheath position, and (5) confirmation of location and stability of device before its irrecoverable release. The ability of ICE to perform these tasks was assessed from three separate positions: the standard right atrial (RA) position, within the coronary sinus (CS), and the right ventricular outflow tract. RESULTS: ICE imaging of the LAA was optimal from within the CS, although imaging from the proximal pulmonary artery provided better visualization of the distal LAA in cross-section. The LAA dimensions, confirmation of the absence of LAA thrombus, proper positioning of the delivery sheath, verification of location and stability of the device obtained by ICE were consistent with findings from TEE. CONCLUSION: Using nonconventional imaging planes, ICE imaging was able to perform the intraprocedural functions provided by TEE during implantation of the PLAATO left atrial appendage occlusion device.

Role of echocardiography in percutaneous occlusion of the left atrial appendage.

UNLABELLED: Percutaneous occlusion of the left atrial appendage (LAA) is a modern alternative for the treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and with a high risk of stroke who are not eligible for long-term anticoagulation therapy. Echocardiography plays a significant role in selecting patients, guiding the procedure, and in the post-procedural follow-up. OBJECTIVES AND METHODS: To test the role of transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) and intracardiac echocardiography (ICE) in facilitating and shortening the procedure. RESULTS: ICE represents a more convenient approach in patients who are not under generally anesthesia and helps to facilitate transseptal puncture. On the other hand, TEE, having the ability to rotate the image plane, helps to better determine the position of the occluder. CONCLUSIONS: Echocardiographic guidance of this procedure is essential. Which approach will be preferred will depend on the development of these two methods.

Pacemaker and ICD lead extraction with electrosurgical dissection sheaths and standard transvenous extraction systems: results of a randomized trial.

AIMS: The purpose of this prospective randomized study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of transvenous pacemaker and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) lead extraction with an electrosurgical dissection sheath (EDS) system in a single-centre experience. Methods Over 10 years, 462 patients have undergone transvenous lead extraction in our institution. From these, 120 consecutive patients (with 161 leads) were randomized to either radiofrequency (RF) current supported extraction or standard countertraction lead removal (60 patients in each arm, 96 men and 24 women). The mean age of randomized patients was 62.7 +/- 9.6 years. In 16 patients, we explanted 17 ICD leads. The average time from the date of implantation to the extraction procedure was 73.4 +/- 15.7 months. The most common reason for lead extraction was infection (95.6%). Results The complete extraction of 78 leads (93%) was achieved in the RF group and 56 leads (73%) with the standard transvenous lead extraction system by counter-traction (P < 0.01). Among these leads, we successfully removed nine of 10 ICD leads (90%) in the RF group and only four of seven ICD leads (57%) in the standard group. We also observed a significant reduction in the time taken for the successful removal of pacemaker and ICD leads using the RF system (9.6 +/- 6.2 min versus 21 +/- 9 min, P < 0.01). Partial success was achieved in six patients with the RF system and in 11 with standard sheaths. In those cases where we failed to remove the lead from the body we sent all but one patient to cardiac surgery. Serious complications were associated with the standard system in two patients, both of whom developed septic pulmonary embolization. Serious bleeding occurred in three patients, one with standard and two with the EDS lead extraction system. CONCLUSION: The EDS extraction system is significantly more effective and quicker. However, the standard counter-traction method is still an effective alternative when used in a highly experienced centre.