Abstract Background: Percutaneous left atrial appendage (LAA) occlusion may be an alternative therapy for atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with contraindication for anti-coagulation therapy. However, the influence of LAA occlusion on left atrial (LA) performance has not been studied. Objective: Our aim was to evaluate the influence of percutaneous LAA occlusion device on LA function by transthoracic echocardiography plus speckle-tracking echocardiography (STE). Methods: We included 16 patients undergoing percutaneous LAA closure with adequate echocardiographic window for the study of LA mechanics. Transthoracic echocardiography was performed before and after the procedure. LA volumes were calculated using the biplane method, and LA mechanics were assessed using STE. The analysis focused on the LA reservoir phase strain and strain rate. Results: Seventy-five percent of patients had permanent atrial fibrillation. Embolic and bleeding risk scores used were CHA2DS2-VASc [median of 4-5] and HAS-BLED [median of 2-3]. Major bleeding (62%) was the most common indication for the procedure. Percutaneous LAA closure was performed successfully in all patients, without major complications. No differences were found in maximum LA volume (44 ± 11 vs. 46 ± 13 mL/m2; p = 0.54), minimum LA volume (32 ± 8 vs. 37 ± 14 mL/m2; p = 0.09) or LA emptying fraction (26 ± 17 vs. 21 ± 14%; p = 0.33) before and after the procedure. Similarly, no differences were noted in left atrial strain (13.7 ± 11.1 vs. 13.0 ± 8.8%; p = 0.63) or strain rate (1.06 ± 0.26 vs. 1.13 ± 0.34 s-1; p = 0.38) in the reservoir phase. Conclusions: Our data suggest that percutaneous LAA closure does not affect LA reservoir function.

Resumo Fundamento: As recomendações de miocardiopatia hipertrófica (MCH) da Sociedade Europeia de Cardiologia aconselham a estimativa do risco de morte súbita cardíaca (MSC) como parte da avaliação clínica e decisão de implantação de cardioversor desfibrilador implantável (CDI). Objetivo: Comparar a estratificação de risco de MSC de acordo com as recomendações de 2011 e 2014. Métodos: Estudo retrospectivo de 105 pacientes com diagnóstico de MCH. Avaliou-se a recomendação para implantação de CDI conforme as recomendações de 2011 e 2014. A análise estatística foi realizada usando o software SPSS versão 19.0.0.2®. Os testes realizados foram bilaterais, sendo considerado o nível de significância de 5% (p< 0,05). Resultados: Conforme as recomendações ACCF/AHA 2011, 39,0% dos pacientes tinham indicação para implantação de CDI (nível de evidência classe IIa). Conforme as recomendações de 2014, apenas 12,4% dos pacientes apresentam indicação classe IIa para implantação de CDI. Comparando os dois modelos de estratificação de risco de MSC em MCH, verificou-se uma redução significativa na proporção de pacientes com indicação para implantação de CDI (p < 0,001). Do total de 41 pacientes classificados como IIa segundo as recomendações de 2011, 68,3% deles recebeu uma classificação diferente em 2014. Conclusão: No estudo foram encontradas diferenças significativas quando comparados os métodos de estratificação de risco de MSC para implantação de CDI. O escore de risco atual parece identificar muitos pacientes de baixo risco, que não são candidatos à implantação de CDI. A utilização desse novo escore resulta numa redução significativa do número de CDI implantados.

Abstract Background: The new European Society of Cardiology guidelines for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) define the estimation of sudden cardiac death (SCD) risk as an integral part of clinical management. An implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) is recommended (class IIa) when the risk is ≥ 6%. Objectives: To compare the SCD risk stratification according to the 2011 and 2014 recommendations for ICD implantation in patients with HCM. Methods: Retrospective study including 105 patients diagnosed with HCM. The indication for ICD was assessed using the 2011 and 2014 guidelines. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS software version 19.0.0.2®. The tests performed were bilateral, considering the significance level of 5% (p < 0.05). Results: Regarding primary prevention, according to the 2011 ACCF/AHA recommendations, 39.0% of the patients had indication for ICD implantation (level of evidence IIa). Using the 2014 guidelines, only 12.4% of the patients had an indication for ICD implantation. Comparing the two risk stratification models for patients with HCM, we detected a significant reduction in the number of indications for ICD implantation (p < 0.001). Of the 41 patients classified as IIa according to the 2011 recommendations, 68.3% received a different classification according to the 2014 guidelines. Conclusion: Significant differences were found when comparing the SCD risk stratification for ICD implantation in the two guidelines. The current SCD risk score seems to identify many low-risk patients who are not candidates for ICD implantation. The use of this new score results in a significant reduction in the number of ICD implanted.