4.6 Review

Assessment and Management of the Left Atrial Appendage Thrombus in Patients With Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation

期刊

CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
卷 34, 期 3, 页码 252-261

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.cjca.2017.12.008

关键词

-

资金

  1. Fonds de recherchei du Quebec-Sante

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Intracardiac thrombi arising in the left atrial appendage (LAA) are the principal cause of stroke in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF). Predicting the presence of LAA thrombi is of vital importance in stratifying patients that would need further LAA imaging prior to cardioversion or AF ablation. Methods: We comprehensively searched PubMed from its inception to November 2017 for randomized controlled trials, cohort and case control studies, as well as for case series on LAA thrombi risk factors, imaging, prevention, and anticoagulation management in atrial fibrillation. Results: A systematic review of the literature identified 106 articles that investigated the presence of LAA thrombi in AF patients. We classified the articles according to topic and reported on: (1) risk factors; (2) diagnostic imaging modalities; (3) prevention strategies before cardioversion; (4) prevention strategies before AF ablation; and (5) management of detected LAA thrombi. Conclusions: Integration of clinical, biomarker, and imaging risk factors can improve overall prediction for the presence of LAA thrombi, translating into improved patient selection for imaging. The gold standard for the diagnosis of LAA thrombi remains transesophageal echocardiography, although intracardiac ultrasound, cardiac computed tomography, and cardiovascular magnetic imaging are promising alternative modalities. When LAA thrombi are discovered, the treatment regimen remains variable, although direct oral anticoagulants might have efficacy similar to vitamin K antagonists. Future trials will help further elucidate direct oral anticoagulant use for the treatment of LAA thrombi.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据