Home > Journals > Minerva Cardiology and Angiology > Past Issues > Minerva Cardiology and Angiology 2021 April;69(2) > Minerva Cardiology and Angiology 2021 April;69(2):178-84

CURRENT ISSUE
 

JOURNAL TOOLS

eTOC
To subscribe PROMO
Submit an article
Recommend to your librarian
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Publication history
Reprints
Permissions
Cite this article as
Share

 

ORIGINAL ARTICLE   

Minerva Cardiology and Angiology 2021 April;69(2):178-84

DOI: 10.23736/S2724-5683.20.05215-9

Copyright © 2020 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

language: English

Left atrial appendage morphology at transesophageal echocardiography: how to improve reproducibility?

Matteo ANSELMINO 1, Simone FREA 1, Sebastiano GILI 2, Chiara ROVERA 3 , Mara MORELLO 1, Marcella JORFIDA 1, Julien TEODORI 1, Jacopo PERVERSI 4, Ilaria SALVETTI 1, Walter GROSSO MARRA 5, Riccardo FALETTI 6, Dorico RIGHI 6,
Fiorenzo GAITA 1, Gaetano M. DE FERRARI 1

1 Division of Cardiology, Department of Medical Sciences, Molinette Hospital, Città della Salute e della Scienza, Turin, Italy; 2 Interventional Cardiology Unit 3, IRCCS Monzino Cardiac Center, Milan, Italy; 3 Division of Cardiology, Hospital of Chivasso, Chivasso, Turin, Italy; 4 Division of Cardiology, Cardinal Massaia Hospital, Asti, Italy; 5 Division of Cardiology, Hospital of Ivrea, Ivrea, Turin, Italy; 6 Division of Radiology, Department of Diagnostic Imaging and Radiotherapy, University of Turin, Turin, Italy



BACKGROUND: Left atrial appendage (LAA) morphology, investigated by computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging, has proved to relate to the risk of cerebrovascular events in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). The aim of the present study was to assess reproducibility of transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) imaging in describing LAA morphology.
METHODS: Two-hundred consecutive patients referred for TEE were enrolled. In the first group of 47 (23.5%) patients LAA morphology was analyzed by conventional TEE and described as ChickenWing, Windsock, Cactus or Cauliflower. In the second group of 153 (76.5%) patients, instead, a 3D-Xplane diagnostic algorithm was performed to stratify LAA morphology as linear (ChickenWing) or complex (Windsock/Cactus and Cauliflower). Interobserver variability within three independent readers was assessed in both groups of patients and stratified by operator’s experience and training. In a subgroup of 19 (12.4%) patients, the agreement of LAA morphology description by 3D-Xplane diagnostic algorithm was compared to cardiac magnetic resonance.
RESULTS: By conventional TEE the agreement among operators on LAA morphology classification was poor (ρ<0.13). The 3D-XPlane diagnostic algorithm, significantly increased interobserver agreement up to ρ=0.32 within all readers and up to ρ=0.82 among the experienced and specifically trained operators. LAA morphology description in this latter group provided strong agreement with cardiac magnetic resonance (up to ρ=0.77).
CONCLUSIONS: LAA morphology assessment is challenging by conventional TEE. To improve reproducibility, the use of the 3D-Xplane technique combined with a specific diagnostic algorithm and training of the operators is fundamental.


KEY WORDS: Atrial appendage; Echocardiography; Echocardiography, transesophageal; Atrial fibrillation

top of page