Fusion Imaging During the Interventional Closure of Patent Foramen Ovale and Atrial Septal Defects

Atrial Fibrillation Ablation in Congenital Heart Disease: Therapeutic Challenges and Future Perspectives

The increasing prevalence of atrial fibrillation (AF) in adults with congenital heart disease raises significant questions regarding its management. The unique underlying anatomic and physiological background further adds to the difficulty in eliminating the AF burden in these patients. Herein, we provide an overview of the current knowledge on the pathophysiology and risk factors for AF in adult congenital heart disease, with a special focus on the existing challenges in AF ablation. Emerging imaging modalities and ablation techniques might have a role to play. Evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of AF ablation in adult congenital heart disease is summarized, especially for patients with an atrial septal defect, Ebstein anomaly of the tricuspid valve, tetralogy of Fallot, and Fontan circulation. Finally, any remaining gaps in knowledge and potential areas of future research are highlighted.

Real-time echocardiography-fluoroscopy fusion imaging for left atrial appendage closure: prime time for fusion imaging?

BACKGROUND

Real-time echocardiography-fluoroscopy fusion imaging (FI) merges real-time echocardiographic imaging with fluoroscopic images allowing intuitive anatomical spatial orientation during structural heart disease interventions. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of FI during percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC).

METHODS

34 consecutive patients before (-FI) and 121 patients after (+FI) the introduction of FI for LAAC were included in a single-centre study. In-hospital safety parameters were analysed according to adverse event (AE) definition of the Munich consensus document and procedure-related parameters were assessed for efficacy. An ANCOVA was performed to investigate the influence of a learning curve.

RESULTS

Time until successful transseptal puncture was significantly reduced as well as total procedure time and the amount of contrast agent used (+FI/-FI:17 ± 6.35 min vs. 22 ± 8.33 min, p = 0.001; +FI/-FI: 50 min IQR 43 min - 60 min vs. 57 min IQR 45 min -70 min; p = 0.013; +FI/-FI: 70 mL, IQR 55 ml-90 mL vs. 152 mL, IQR 107 mL - 205 mL; p < 0.001). However, fluoroscopy time and dose-area product did not differ between both groups. There was no significant difference in the occurrence of in-hospital adverse events (+FI/-FI: 2.5% vs. 0%; p = 0.596). The ANCOVA revealed that the learning curve does not affect procedural efficacy parameters such as procedure time, time to transseptal puncture, amount of contrast agent and dose-area product.

CONCLUSIONS

FI for LAAC reduces the total procedure time, the time to successful transseptal puncture and periprocedural amount of contrast agent.