A comparison of conventional and advanced 3D imaging techniques for percutaneous left atrial appendage closure.
Houtan Heidari, Dominika Kanschik, Oliver Maier, Georg Wolff, Maximilian Brockmeyer, Maryna Masyuk, Raphael Romano Bruno, Amin Polzin, Ralf Erkens, Gerald Antoch, Sebastian Daniel Reinartz, Nikos Werner, Malte Kelm, Tobias Zeus, Shazia Afzal, Christian Jung
Author Information
Houtan Heidari: Division of Cardiology, Pulmonology and Vascular Medicine, Heinrich Heine University, Medical Faculty, D��sseldorf, Germany.
Dominika Kanschik: Division of Cardiology, Pulmonology and Vascular Medicine, Heinrich Heine University, Medical Faculty, D��sseldorf, Germany.
Oliver Maier: Division of Cardiology, Pulmonology and Vascular Medicine, Heinrich Heine University, Medical Faculty, D��sseldorf, Germany.
Georg Wolff: Division of Cardiology, Pulmonology and Vascular Medicine, Heinrich Heine University, Medical Faculty, D��sseldorf, Germany.
Maximilian Brockmeyer: Division of Cardiology, Pulmonology and Vascular Medicine, Heinrich Heine University, Medical Faculty, D��sseldorf, Germany.
Maryna Masyuk: Division of Cardiology, Pulmonology and Vascular Medicine, Heinrich Heine University, Medical Faculty, D��sseldorf, Germany.
Raphael Romano Bruno: Division of Cardiology, Pulmonology and Vascular Medicine, Heinrich Heine University, Medical Faculty, D��sseldorf, Germany.
Amin Polzin: Division of Cardiology, Pulmonology and Vascular Medicine, Heinrich Heine University, Medical Faculty, D��sseldorf, Germany.
Ralf Erkens: Division of Cardiology, Pulmonology and Vascular Medicine, Heinrich Heine University, Medical Faculty, D��sseldorf, Germany.
Gerald Antoch: Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University D��sseldorf, Medical Faculty, D��sseldorf, Germany.
Sebastian Daniel Reinartz: Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University D��sseldorf, Medical Faculty, D��sseldorf, Germany.
Nikos Werner: Department of Cardiology, Heartcenter Trier, Krankenhaus der Barmherzigen Br��der, Trier, Germany.
Malte Kelm: Division of Cardiology, Pulmonology and Vascular Medicine, Heinrich Heine University, Medical Faculty, D��sseldorf, Germany.
Tobias Zeus: Division of Cardiology, Pulmonology and Vascular Medicine, Heinrich Heine University, Medical Faculty, D��sseldorf, Germany.
Shazia Afzal: Division of Cardiology, Pulmonology and Vascular Medicine, Heinrich Heine University, Medical Faculty, D��sseldorf, Germany.
Christian Jung: Division of Cardiology, Pulmonology and Vascular Medicine, Heinrich Heine University, Medical Faculty, D��sseldorf, Germany.
Background: Understanding complex cardiac anatomy is essential for percutaneous left atrial appendage (LAA) closure. Conventional multi-slice computed tomography (MSCT) and transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) are now supported by advanced 3D printing and virtual reality (VR) techniques for three-dimensional visualization of volumetric data sets. This study aimed to investigate their added value for LAA closure procedures. Methods: Ten patients scheduled for interventional LAA closure were evaluated with MSCT and TEE. Patient-specific 3D printings and VR models were fabricated based on MSCT data. Ten cardiologists then comparatively assessed LAA anatomy and its procedure relevant surrounding structures with all four imaging modalities and rated their procedural utility on a 5-point Likert scale questionnaire (from 1���=���strongly agree to 5���=���strongly disagree). Results: Device sizing was rated highest in MSCT (MSCT: 1.9��������0.8; TEE: 2.6��������0.9; 3D printing: 2.5��������1.0; VR: 2.5��������1.1; ���<���0.01); TEE, VR, and 3D printing were superior in the visualization of the Fossa ovalis compared to MSCT (MSCT: 3.3��������1.4; TEE: 2.2��������1.3; 3D printing: 2.2��������1.4; VR: 1.9��������1.3; all ���<���0.01). The major strength of VR and 3D printing techniques was a superior depth perception (VR: 1.6��������0.5; 3D printing: 1.8��������0.4; TEE: 2.9��������0.7; MSCT: 2.6��������0.8; ���<���0.01). The visualization of extracardiac structures was rated less accurate in TEE than MSCT (TEE: 2.6��������0.9; MSCT: 1.9��������0.8, ���<���0.01). However, 3D printing and VR insufficiently visualized extracardiac structures in the present study. Conclusion: A true 3D visualization in VR or 3D printing provides an additional value in the evaluation of the LAA for the planning of percutaneous closure. In particular, the superior perception of depth was seen as a strength of a 3D visualization. This may contribute to a better overall understanding of the anatomy. Clinical studies are needed to evaluate whether a more comprehensive understanding through advanced multimodal imaging of patient-specific anatomy using VR may translate into improved procedural outcomes.
