Comparison of Intracardiac Echocardiography and Transesophageal Echocardiography for Image Guidance in Percutaneous Patent Foramen Ovale Closure

Transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) guidance is the current gold standard for catheter-based procedures in the treatment of structural heart diseases. Intracardiac echocardiography (ICE), which can be performed under local anesthesia, has been recently introduced and is becoming more widely used. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of ICE and TEE in patent foramen ovale (PFO) device closure. All 74 patients with a history of cryptogenic stroke undergoing PFO closure for secondary prophylaxis were selected from our registry. Intraprocedural TEE was performed by echocardiographer-cardiologists with the patient under general anesthesia. Conversely, ICE was performed with the patient under local anesthesia. Baseline characteristics, procedural details, and immediate outcomes were compared between the TEE and ICE groups ( = 49 and = 25, respectively). Although patients in the ICE group were older (47 ± 10 vs. 57 ± 7 years, < 0.001), sex and comorbidity variables were similar between the two groups. The degree of inducible right-to-left shunt via the PFO, assessed using preprocedural TEE, was also comparable. Notably, fluoroscopy time (22 ± 18 vs. 16 ± 7 min, = 0.030), radiation dose (498 ± 880 vs. 196 ± 111 mGy, = 0.022), and total procedural time in the catheter laboratory (99 ± 30 vs. 67 ± 12 min, < 0.001) were significantly lower in the ICE group than those in the TEE group. The entire hospital stay was similar between groups (3.8 ± 2.2 vs. 3.4 ± 1.3 days, = 0.433). No procedural complications, such as device embolization, pericardial hemorrhage, major bleeding, mortality, or access-related vascular injury were reported in either group. ICE-guided PFO device closure is quicker and less hazardous in terms of radiation exposure than the TEE-guided procedure, with similar procedural outcomes and duration of hospital stay.