Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 17, 2026
The WATCHMAN Left Atrial Appendage Closure Device for Atrial Fibrillation
Published on: February 28, 2012
Computed tomography measurement of the left atrial appendage for optimal sizing of the Watchman device
Bo Xu1, Jorge Betancor1, Kimi Sato1
1Section of Cardiovascular Imaging, Heart and Vascular Institute, Cleveland Clinic, OH 44195, USA.
Introduction:
Percutaneous left atrial appendage (LAA) occlusion is an emerging treatment option for patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation who cannot tolerate oral anticoagulation. The Watchman device (Boston Scientific Corporation, Natick, MA, USA) is deployed at the ostium of the LAA, and an appropriately sized device is critical for successful occlusion. However, standardized imaging protocols for device sizing have not been established.
Objectives:
We investigated the clinical utility of a standardized imaging protocol, with pre-procedural multi-detector cardiac computed tomography (MDCT), and intra-procedural transesophageal echocardiography (TEE), for Watchman device sizing.
Methods:
Patients who underwent Watchman device implantation between 2010 and 2016 at our center, and who had pre-procedural MDCT and intra-procedural TEE were included. MDCT measurements (CTmax, CTmin, CTmean), and TEE measurement (TEEmax) of the LAA ostium were determined for each case, and correlated with the final size of the Watchman device implanted. Demographic data and clinical outcomes were collected.
Results:
The study included 80 patients (mean age: 75 ± 9.6 years; male: 68%; mean CHA2DS2-VASc score: 4.5 ± 1.4). CTmax of the LAA ostium correlated strongly with the final deployed Watchman device size (Spearman's rho: 0.81, p < 0.001), while TEEmax of the LAA ostium showed only moderate correlation with the final deployed Watchman device size (Spearman's rho: 0.61, p < 0.001). Implantation success rate was 100%. At a mean duration of follow-up of 197 days, there were no device-related complications (device embolization, cardiac perforation and pericardial tamponade). At follow-up, the vast majority of patients (76 patients; 95%) had either no or trivial (≤3 mm) residual peri-device leak on TEE.
Conclusions:
A standardized imaging protocol for assessment of Watchman device implantation incorporating pre-procedural MDCT and intra-procedural TEE, was associated with excellent procedural outcomes at a mean duration of follow-up of 197 days.
