Search

Background and aim: Our aim was to evaluate the fluoroscopy time (FT), procedure time (PT) safety and efficacy when using intracardiac echocardiography (ICE) in comparison to transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) guidance for transcatheter closure of Ostium Secundum Atrial Septal Defect (OS‐ASD). Method: Ninety patients (n = 90) diagnosed with OS‐ASD underwent transcatheter closure between March 2006 and October 2021. Fifty‐seven patients were treated under ICE guidance, while 33 patients were treated under TEE guidance. Results: Mean age was 43 ± 15 years and 42 ± 10 years in the ICE and TEE groups, respectively. The majority of patients had a centrally placed defect. Median FT was 8.40 min versus 11.70 min (p <.001) in the ICE group compared to the TEE group, respectively. Median PT was 43 min versus 94 min (p <.001) in the ICE group compared to the TEE group, respectively. Both ICE and TEE provided high quality images. All interventions were completed successfully, except for one patient in the ICE group who experienced a device migration, the development of atrial tachycardia in one patient and atrial fibrillation in two patients in the ICE group which spontaneously cardioverted. There were no other complications. Conclusion: This study on a consistent cohort of patients with OS‐ASD undergoing percutaneous closure suggests that use of ICE is safe and efficacious. Compared to TEE, ICE demonstrated significantly shorter FT and PT, decreasing the entire duration of the procedure and x‐ray exposure. No relevant differences were observed in terms of success rate and complications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Non-ischemic dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) is a disease characterized by left ventricular dilation and systolic dysfunction. Patients with DCM are at higher risk for ventricular arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death (SCD). According to current international guidelines, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 35% represents the main indication for prophylactic implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantation in patients with DCM. However, LVEF lacks sensitivity and specificity as a risk marker for SCD. It has been seen that the majority of patients with DCM do not actually benefit from the ICD implantation and, on the contrary, that many patients at risk of SCD are not identified as they have preserved or mildly depressed LVEF. Therefore, the use of LVEF as unique decision parameter does not maximize the benefit of ICD therapy. Multiple risk factors used in combination could likely predict SCD risk better than any single risk parameter. Several predictors have been proposed including genetic variants, electric indexes, and volumetric parameters of LV. Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) can improve risk stratification thanks to tissue characterization sequences such as LGE sequence, parametric mapping, and feature tracking. This review evaluates the role of CMR as a risk stratification tool in DCM patients referred for ICD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]