Cardiac Computed Tomography Versus Transesophageal Echocardiography for the Detection of Left Atrial Appendage Thrombus: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background Transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) has been considered the gold standard for left atrial appendage (LAA) thrombus detection. Nevertheless, TEE may sometimes induce discomfort and cause complications. Cardiac computed tomography has been studied extensively for LAA thrombus detection....

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of the American Heart Association 2021-12, Vol.10 (23), p.e022505-e022505
Hauptverfasser: Yu, Shandong, Zhang, Heping, Li, Hongwei
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background Transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) has been considered the gold standard for left atrial appendage (LAA) thrombus detection. Nevertheless, TEE may sometimes induce discomfort and cause complications. Cardiac computed tomography has been studied extensively for LAA thrombus detection. We performed this systemic review and meta-analysis to assess the diagnostic accuracy of cardiac computed tomography for LAA thrombus detection compared with TEE. Methods and Results A systemic search was conducted in the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases from January 1977 to February 2021. Studies performed for assessment diagnostic accuracy of cardiac computed tomography on LAA thrombus compared with TEE were included. Summary sensitivity, specificity, and posterior probability of LAA thrombus was calculated by using bivariate random-effects model. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool was used for the quality assessment. A total of 27 studies involving 6960 patients were included in our study. The summary sensitivity of early imaging studies was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.79-0.99), and the specificity was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.85-0.92). The positive posterior probability was 19.11%, and the negative posterior probability was 0.16%. The summary sensitivity of delayed imaging studies was 0.98 (95% CI, 0.92-1.00), and the specificity was 1.00 (95% CI, 0.98-1.00). The positive posterior probability was 95.76%, and the negative posterior probability was 0.12%. The delayed imaging method significantly improved the specificity (1.00 versus 0.89;
ISSN:2047-9980
2047-9980
DOI:10.1161/JAHA.121.022505