4.2 Article

Left Atrial Appendage Filling Defects on 64-Slice Multidetector Computed Tomography in Patients Undergoing Pulmonary Vein Isolation: Predictors and Comparison to Transesophageal Echocardiography

Journal

JOURNAL OF COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY
Volume 33, Issue 6, Pages 946-951

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/RCT.0b013e31819cabc3

Keywords

atrial fibrillation; left atrial appendage thrombus; left atrial appendage filling defects; multidetector computed tomography

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: To evaluate predictor variables and accuracy of left atrial appendage (LAA) filling defects seen on multidetector computed tomographic (MDCT) scan in predicting LAA thrombus in patients undergoing pulmonary vein (PV) isolation procedure. Methods: Electrocardiogram-gated 64-slice MDCT and transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) were undertaken in 51 consecutive patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation who were referred for circumferential antral pulmonary vein isolation. Results: In 51 patients (37 men; mean age, 64 years), left atrium (LA) diameter emerged as the predictor of LAA filling defects (odds ratio, 4.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.19-20.25). Left atrial appendage filling defects had sensitivity of 100%, specificity of 95.92%, positive predictive value of 0.5, and negative predictive value of 1, for thrombi seen on TEE image. A mean LAA/ascending aorta Hounsfield unit ratio of 0.78 or less was identified as a sensitive predictor of thrombus on TEE (sensitivity, 100%; specificity, 87.8%; positive predictive value, 0.25; and negative predictive value, 1). Conclusions: A larger LA predisposes to LAA filling defects on MDCT scan. Pending prospective validation, absence of LAA filling defects on 64-slice MDCT may reliably exclude LAA thrombi in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation obviating the need for TEE.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available