IJCS | Volume 31, Nº6, November / December 2018

573 Figure 2 - Maximum and minimum volume of the left atrium before and after percutaneous closure of the left atrial appendage (LAA). Differences between baseline and post-LAA occlusion device implantation data were analysed by paired sample t-test. Figure 3 - Left atrial emptying fraction before and after percutaneous closure of the left atrial appendage (LAA). Differences between baseline and post-LAA occlusion device implantation data were analysed by paired sample t-test. Madeira et al. Atrial appendage closure and atrial performance Int J Cardiovasc Sci. 2018;31(6)569-577 Original Article vs. 21 ± 14%; p = 0.33) after the intervention compared with the baseline values. Left atrium reservoir Ɛ R and SR R Global and regional peak Ɛ R and SR R of the 12 segments before and months after percutaneous closure of the LAA are listed in Table 2. Similar values of Ɛ R (10.1 [8.1–14.7] vs. 12.7 [5.4–16.5]%; p = 0.81) and SR R (1.06 ± 0.26 vs. 1.13 ± 0.34 s -1 ; p = 0.38) were observed before and after the procedure (Figure 4). Assessment of left atrial lateral wall revealed similar Ɛ R (11.0 [6.5–19.8]% vs. 8.2 [2.7–15.9]%; p = 0.60) and SR R (1.01 [0.78–1.54] vs. 1.02 [0.85–1.56] s -1 ; p = 0.75) before and after the procedure. In 44% of patients, there was a decrease in Ɛ R. There were no differences regarding patient age, baseline left atrial volume, left atrial emptying fraction, Ɛ R, SR R , CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc or HAS-BLED scores, cardiac-plug device size, or incidence of cardiovascular adverse events during follow-up between patients with decreased and unaltered postoperative Ɛ R values (Table 3).