Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 2, 2026
The WATCHMAN Left Atrial Appendage Closure Device for Atrial Fibrillation
Published on: February 28, 2012
Impact of left atrial appendage occlusion on left atrial function-The LAFIT Watchman study
Ghulam Murtaza1, Venkat Vuddanda2, Krishna Akella1
1The Kansas City Heart Rhythm Institute & Research Foundation, 5100 W 110th St Second Floor, Overland Park, KS, 66211, USA.
Background:
Left atrial (LA) strain and strain rate (SR) analysis by two-dimensional speckle tracking echocardiography is a novel way of LA function assessment. From prior study, we know that LA appendage closure with LARIAT appears to improve LA function.
Objective:
The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of LAA closure via Watchman device on LA function via strain and volumetric analyses using two-dimensional speckle tracking echocardiography (2D-STE).
Methods:
Twenty-five patients who underwent Watchman device implantation (WDI) were included. LA function parameters (volumetric, strain indices) were calculated from apical four chamber views with the reference point set at QRS using 2D-STE before and after WDI. LA expansion index, strain and strain rate during ventricular systole represent LA reservoir function. Passive emptying fraction, strain and strain rate during early ventricular diastole represent LA conduit function.
Results:
Mean age was 76 ± 6.9 years with 60% males. There was significant improvement in conduit function (LA passive emptying fraction; post 28.6 (21.9-35.9) vs pre 21.0 (13.8-34.7), p = 0.032), reservoir function (LA expansion index; post 75.3 (52.3-98.0) vs pre 58.1 (37.8-85.2), p = 0.026), and booster function (LA active emptying fraction; post 13.3 (9.7-29.9) vs pre 12.6 (8.8-25.5), p = 0.04) by volumetric indices. No significant improvement was noted with strain indices in conduit function (SRe; post - 0.56 (0.43-0.93) vs pre - 0.58 (0.46-0.87); p = 0.518) and reservoir function (SRs; post + 0.58 (0.28-0.40) vs pre + 0.52 (0.35-0.86); p = 0.851).
Conclusions:
WDI resulted in discrepancy of volumetric and strain indices in LA function assessment.
