Advertisement

Pre and Post Procedure Imaging of the Watchman® Device with Cardiac Computed Tomography Angiography

  • Dennis ToyEmail author
  • David M. Naeger
Imaging (Q Truong, Section Editors)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Imaging

Abstract

Purpose of review

Left atrial appendage occlusion with the Watchman® device requires pre and post procedure imaging. Currently, transesophageal echocardiography is the recommended modality, though cardiac computed tomography angiography may be an acceptable alternative.

Recent findings

Cardiac computed tomography angiography can be used to safely and accurately predict Watchman® device sizing. It can also be used to detect post procedure complications similar to, or better than, transesophageal echocardiography.

Summary

Cardiac computed tomography angiography is a viable alternative imaging modality for pre and post procedure evaluation for the Watchman device.

Keywords

Watchman Device-related thrombosis Peri-device leak Cardiac computed tomography angiography Left atrial appendage occlusion Atrial fibrillation 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

References and Recommended Reading

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Blackshear JL, Odell JA. Appendage obliteration to reduce stroke in cardiac surgical patients with atrial fibrillation. Ann Thorac Surg. 1996;61(2):755–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-4975(95)00887-X.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    •• Boersma LV, Ince H, Kische S, Pokushalov E, Schmitz T, Schmidt B, et al. Evaluating real-world clinical outcomes in atrial fibrillation patients receiving the WATCHMAN left atrial appendage closure technology. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2019;12(4):e006841.  https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCEP.118.006841 Provides additional supporting evidence for the safety and efficacy of the Watchman device in a real-world setting, including patients with contraindications to oral anticoagulation. Patients had lower rates of thromboembolic-related events as well as decreased non-procedural major bleeding.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    WATCHMAN [package insert]. Marlborough, MA. Boston Scientific Corporation; 2015.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hahn RT, Abraham T, Adams MS, Bruce CJ, Glas KE, Lang RM, et al. Guidelines for performing a comprehensive transesophageal echocardiographic examination: recommendations from the American Society of Echocardiography and the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists. Anesth Analg. 2014;118(1):21–68.  https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000000016.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Spencer RJ, DeJong P, Fahmy P, Lempereur M, Tsang MYC, Gin KG, et al. Changes in left atrial appendage dimensions following volume loading during percutaneous left atrial appendage closure. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;8(15):1935–41.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2015.07.035.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ismail TF, Panikker S, Markides V, Foran JP, Padley S, Rubens MB, et al. CT imaging for left atrial appendage closure: a review and pictorial essay. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2015;9(2):89–102.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcct.2015.01.011.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    • Xu B, Betancor J, Sato K, Harb S, Abdur Rehman K, Patel K, et al. Computed tomography measurement of the left atrial appendage for optimal sizing of the Watchman device. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2018;12(1):50–5.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcct.2017.11.012 Provides supporting evidence that CCTA measurements strongly correlate with size of the final device deployed.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hur J, Kim YJ, Lee HJ, Ha JW, Heo JH, Choi EY, et al. Left atrial appendage thrombi in stroke patients: detection with two-phase cardiac CT angiography versus transesophageal echocardiography. Radiology. 2009;251(3):683–90.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2513090794.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Romero J, Husain SA, Kelesidis I, Sanz J, Medina HM, Garcia MJ. Detection of left atrial appendage thrombus by cardiac computed tomography in patients with atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013;6(2):185–94.  https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.112.000153.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Beigel R, Wunderlich NC, Ho SY, Arsanjani R, Siegel RJ. The left atrial appendage: anatomy, function, and noninvasive evaluation. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014;7(12):1251–65.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcmg.2014.08.009.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Veinot JP, Harrity PJ, Gentile F, Khandheria BK, Bailey KR, Eickholt JT, et al. Anatomy of the normal left atrial appendage: a quantitative study of age-related changes in 500 autopsy hearts: implications for echocardiographic examination. Circulation. 1997;96(9):3112–5.  https://doi.org/10.1161/01.cir.96.9.3112.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lacomis JM, Goitein O, Deible C, Moran PL, Mamone G, Madan S, et al. Dynamic multidimensional imaging of the human left atrial appendage. Europace. 2007;9(12):1134–40.  https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/eum227.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wang Y, Di Biase L, Horton RP, Nguyen T, Morhanty P, Natale A. Left atrial appendage studied by computed tomography to help planning for appendage closure device placement. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2010;21(9):973–82.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-8167.2010.01814.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Di Biase L, Santangeli P, Anselmino M, Mohanty P, Salvetti I, Gili S, et al. Does the left atrial appendage morphology correlate with the risk of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation? Results from a multicenter study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60(6):531–8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2012.04.032.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chow DH, Bieliauskas G, Sawaya FJ, Millan-Iturbe O, Kofoed KF, Sondergaard L, et al. A comparative study of different imaging modalities for successful percutaneous left atrial appendage closure. Open Heart. 2017;4(2):e000627.  https://doi.org/10.1136/openhrt-2017-000627.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    •• Wang DD, Eng M, Kupsky D, Myers E, Forbes M, Rahman M, et al. Application of 3-dimensional computed tomographic image guidance to WATCHMAN implantation and impact on early operator learning curve: single-center experience. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;9(22):2329–40.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2016.07.038 Provides detailed step-by-step instructions in obtaining left atrial appendage landing zone measurements. It also demonstrated that CCTA can accurately evaluate the left atrial appendage for pre procedure planning.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ernst G, Stollberger C, Abzieher F, Veit-Dirscherl W, Bonner E, Bibus B, et al. Morphology of the left atrial appendage. Anat Rec. 1995;242(4):553–61.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ar.1092420411.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Khurram IM, Dewire J, Mager M, Maqbool F, Zimmerman SL, Zipunnikov V, et al. Relationship between left atrial appendage morphology and stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation. Heart Rhythm. 2013;10(12):1843–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2013.09.065.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Baer H, Mereles D, Grunig E, Kuecherer H. Images in echocardiography. Exaggerated pectinate muscles mimicking multiple left atrial appendage thrombi. Eur J Echocardiogr. 2001;2(2):131.  https://doi.org/10.1053/euje.2000.0056.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Holmes DR, Reddy VY, Turi ZG, Doshi SK, Sievert H, Buchbinder M, et al. Percutaneous closure of the left atrial appendage versus warfarin therapy for prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation: a randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2009;374(9689):534–42.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61343-X.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Heersink D, Murdoch D, Humphries J, Walters DL. Left atrial appendage closure device implantation after percutaneous atrial septal defect closure. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;9(10):e95–6.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2016.02.019.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    •• Saw J, Nielsen-Kudsk JE, Bergmann M, Daniels MJ, Tzikas A, Reisman M, et al. Antithrombotic therapy and device-related thrombosis following endovascular left atrial appendage closure. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;12(11):1067–76.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2018.11.001 Provides a comprehensive review of device-related thrombosis with suggested treatment and follow-up strategy.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fauchier L, Cinaud A, Brigadeau F, Lepillier A, Pierre B, Abbey S, et al. Device-related thrombosis after percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion for atrial fibrillation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;71(14):1528–36.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2018.01.076.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Garot P, Cormier B, Horvilleur J. Device-related thrombus after left atrial appendage closure. Interv Cardiol. 2019;14(1):42–4.  https://doi.org/10.15420/icr.2018.21.3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Saw J, Fahmy P, DeJong P, Lempereur M, Spencer R, Tsang M, et al. Cardiac CT angiography for device surveillance after endovascular left atrial appendage closure. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015;16(11):1198–206.  https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjci/jev067.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nguyen A, Gallet R, Riant E, Deux JF, Boukantar M, Mouillet G, et al. Peridevice leak after left atrial appendage closure: incidence, risk factors, and clinical impact. Can J Cardiol. 2019;35(4):405–12.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjca.2018.12.022.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Viles-Gonzalez JF, Kar S, Douglas P, Dukkipati S, Feldman T, Horton R, et al. The clinical impact of incomplete left atrial appendage closure with the Watchman Device in patients with atrial fibrillation: a PROTECT AF (Percutaneous Closure of the Left Atrial Appendage Versus Warfarin Therapy for Prevention of Stroke in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation) substudy. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59(10):923–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2011.11.028.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    •• Dukkipati SR, Kar S, Holmes DR, Doshi SK, Swarup V, Gibson DN, et al. Device-related thrombus after left atrial appendage closure. Circulation. 2018;138(9):874–85.  https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.035090 Retrospective review of 4 important trials that determined that device-related thrombosis was associated with increased risk of ischemic stroke/systemic embolism.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lempereur M, Aminian A, Freixa X, Gafoor S, Kefer J, Tzikas A, et al. Device-associated thrombus formation after left atrial appendage occlusion: a systematic review of events reported with the Watchman, the Amplatzer Cardiac Plug and the Amulet. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;90(5):E111–E21.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.26903. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Main ML, Fan D, Reddy VY, Holmes DR, Gordon NT, Coggins TR, et al. Assessment of device-related thrombus and associated clinical outcomes with the WATCHMAN left atrial appendage closure device for embolic protection in patients with atrial fibrillation (from the PROTECT-AF Trial). Am J Cardiol. 2016;117(7):1127–34.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2016.01.039.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kaneko H, Neuss M, Weissenborn J, Butter C. Predictors of thrombus formation after percutaneous left atrial appendage closure using the WATCHMAN device. Heart Vessels. 2017;32(9):1137–43.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00380-017-0971-x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kubo S, Mizutani Y, Meemook K, Nakajima Y, Hussaini A, Kar S. Incidence, characteristics, and clinical course of device-related thrombus after Watchman left atrial appendage occlusion device implantation in atrial fibrillation patients. JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2017;3(12):1380–6.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacep.2017.05.006.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ostermayer SH, Reisman M, Kramer PH, Matthews RV, Gray WA, Block PC, et al. Percutaneous left atrial appendage transcatheter occlusion (PLAATO system) to prevent stroke in high-risk patients with non-rheumatic atrial fibrillation: results from the international multi-center feasibility trials. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;46(1):9–14.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2005.03.042.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Tzikas A, Holmes DR Jr, Gafoor S, Ruiz CE, Blomstrom-Lundqvist C, Diener HC, et al. Percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion: the Munich consensus document on definitions, endpoints, and data collection requirements for clinical studies. Europace. 2017;19(1):4–15.  https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euw141.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Behnes M, Akin I, Sartorius B, Fastner C, El-Battrawy I, Borggrefe M, et al. LAA Occluder View for post-implantation Evaluation (LOVE)--standardized imaging proposal evaluating implanted left atrial appendage occlusion devices by cardiac computed tomography. BMC Med Imaging. 2016;16(1):25.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12880-016-0127-y.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kar S, Hou D, Jones R, Werner D, Swanson L, Tischler B, et al. Impact of Watchman and Amplatzer devices on left atrial appendage adjacent structures and healing response in a canine model. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;7(7):801–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2014.03.003.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Schwartz RS, Holmes DR, Van Tassel RA, Hauser R, Henry TD, Mooney M, et al. Left atrial appendage obliteration: mechanisms of healing and intracardiac integration. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2010;3(8):870–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2010.04.017.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Massarenti L, Yilmaz A. Incomplete endothelialization of left atrial appendage occlusion device 10 months after implantation. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2012;23(12):1384–5.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-8167.2012.02360.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    • McIvor F, Wall D. Who watches the WATCHMAN? A case of incomplete endothelialization at 3 years after device implantation. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2019.  https://doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezz135 Recent case report highlighting incomplete endothelialization well beyond the expected timeframe.
  40. 40.
    Sharma SP, Singh D, Nakamura D, Gopinathannair R, Lakkireddy D. Incomplete endothelialization of WatchmanTM Device: predictors and implications from two cases. J Atr Fibrillation. 2019;11(5):2162.  https://doi.org/10.4022/jafib.2162.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    • Granier M, Laugaudin G, Massin F, Cade S, Winum PF, Freitag C, et al. Occurrence of incomplete endothelialization causing residual permeability after left atrial appendage closure. J Invasive Cardiol. 2018;30(7):245–50 Incomplete endothelialization is not fully understood but has potentially significant implications for the device. This study highlights the need for additional research and suggests a reasonable approach to assess for incomplete endothelialization.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RadiologyWeill Cornell MedicineNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Denver Health, Department of RadiologyUniversity of ColoradoDenverUSA

Personalised recommendations