Document Type


Publication Date



Objectives—This study aimed to assess current temporal trends in utilization of ICE versus TEE guided closure of interatrial communications, and to compare periprocedural complications and resource utilization between the two imaging modalities. Background—While transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) has historically been used to guide percutaneous structural heart interventions, intracardiac echocardiography (ICE) is being increasingly utilized to guide many of these procedures such as closure of interatrial communications. Methods—Using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, all patients aged >18 years, who underwent ASD or PFO closure with either ICE or TEE guidance between 2003 and 2014 were included. Comparative analysis of outcomes and resource utilization was performed using a propensity score-matching model. Results—ICE guidance for interatrial communication closure increased from 9.7% in 2003 to 50.6% in 2014. In the matched model, the primary endpoint of major adverse cardiovascular events occurred less frequently in the ICE group versus the TEE group (11.1% vs 14.3%, respectively, P = 0.008), mainly driven by less vascular complications in the ICE group (0.5% vs 1.3%, P = 0.045). Length of stay was shorter in the ICE group (3 ± 4 vs 4 ± 4 days, P < 0.0001). Cost was similar in the two groups 18 454 ± 17 035$ in the TEE group vs 18 278 ± 15 780$ in the ICE group (P = 0.75). Conclusions—Intracardiac echocardiogram utilization to guide closure of interatrial communications has plateaued after a rapid rise throughout the 2000s. When utilized to guide interatrial communication closure procedure, ICE is as safe as TEE and does not increase cost or prolonged hospitalizations.

Source Citation

Alqahtani F, Bhirud A, Aljohani S, et al. Intracardiac versus transesophageal echocardiography to guide transcatheter closure of interatrial communications: Nationwide trend and comparative analysis. Journal of Interventional Cardiology. 2017;30(3):234-241. doi:10.1111/joic.12382