Amplatzer left atrial appendage occlusion: single center 10-year experience

Left Atrial Appendage Closure: What Do We Know?

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common arrhythmia in the United States and the most common cause of embolic cerebrovascular events, with the majority of these thrombi originating in the left atrial appendage. The left atrial appendage (LAA) has separate developmental, ultrastructural, and physiological characteristics from the left atrium. Although LAA anatomy is highly variable, it can be categorized into 4 types: cactus, cauliflower, chicken wing, and windsock. The cauliflower type is associated with higher stroke risk in patients with nonvalvular AF. Although the cornerstone of therapy to prevent embolic strokes from AF has been anticoagulation with thrombin inhibitors, a large group of patients are unable to tolerate anticoagulation due to bleeding. This has led to the development and advancement of multiple surgical and percutaneous LAA closure devices to prevent embolic cerebrovascular accidents without the need for anticoagulation. In this article, we discuss the outcomes of major studies that utilized surgical LAA occlusion and its effectiveness. Furthermore, we summarize nonsurgical methods of LAA closure and future directions regarding LAA closure.

Risk factors, clinical implications, and management of peridevice leak following left atrial appendage closure: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) is a treatment modality for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). One of the potential complications of LAAC is a peri-device leak (PDL), which could potentially increase the risk of thromboembolism formation.

METHODS

This systematic review was done according to PRISMA guidelines. Using four databases, all primary studies through April 2022 that met selection criteria were included. Outcomes of interest were studies reporting on PDL characteristics, risk factors and management.

RESULTS

A total of 116 studies met selection criteria (97 original studies and 19 case reports/series). In the original studies (n = 30,133 patients), the weighted mean age was 72.0 ± 7.4 years (57% females) with a HAS-BLED and CHA2DS2-VASc weighted means of 2.8 ± 1.1 and 3.8 ± 1.3, respectively. The most common definition of PDL was based on size; 5 mm: major, 3-5 mm: moderate, < 1 mm minor, or trivial. Follow up time for PDL detection was 7.15 ± 9.0 months. 33% had PDL, irrespective of PDL severity/size, and only 0.9% had PDL of greater than 5 mm. The main risk factors for PDL development included lower degree of over-sizing, lower left ventricular ejection fraction, device/LAA shape mismatch, previous radiofrequency ablation, and male sex. The most common methods to screen for PDL included transesophageal echocardiogram and cardiac CT. PDL Management approaches include Amplatzer Patent Foramen Ovale occluder, Hookless ACP, Amplatzer vascular plug II, embolic coils, and detachable vascular coils; removal or replacement of the device; and left atriotomy.

CONCLUSION

Following LAAC, the emergence of a PDL is a significant complication to be aware of. Current evidence suggests possible risk factors that are worth assessing in-depth. Additional research is required to assess suitable candidates, timing, and strategies to managing patients with PDL.

A preliminary study of minimal left atrial appendage occlusion using Watchman under the guidance of fluoroscopy

BACKGROUND

Left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) has been considered an alternative treatment to prevent embolic stroke in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). However, it carries a risk of general anesthesia or esophageal injury if guided by transesophageal echocardiography (TEE).

AIMS

We aimed to investigate the feasibility and safety of minimal LAAO (MLAAO) using Watchman under fluoroscopy guidance alone in patients with NVAF.

METHODS

A total of 249 consecutive patients with NVAF who underwent LAAO using the WATCHMAN device were divided into two groups: the Standard LAAO (SLAAO) group and the MLAAO group. Procedural characteristics and follow-up results were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference in the rate of successful device implantation (p > 0.05). Fluoroscopy time, radiation exposure dose, and contrast medium usage in the MLAAO group were higher than those in the SLAAO group (p < 0.001). The procedure time and hospitalization duration were significantly lower in the MLAAO group than those in the SLAAO group (p < 0.001). The occluder compression ratio, measured with fluoroscopy, was lower than that measured with TEE (17.63 ± 3.75% vs. 21.69 ± 4.26%, p < 0.001). Significant differences were observed between the SLAAO group and the MLAAO group (p < 0.05) in terms of oropharyngeal/esophageal injury, hypotension, and dysphagia. At 3 months after LAAO, the MLAAO group had a higher incidence of residual flow within 1-5 mm compared to the SLAAO group, although the difference was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

MLAAO guided by fluoroscopy, instead of TEE, without general anesthesia simplifies the operational process and may be considered safe, effective, and feasible, especially for individuals who are unable to tolerate or unwilling to undergo TEE or general anesthesia.

Left atrial appendage occlusion in an older population cohort

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation is the most common cardiac arrhythmia and is a major risk factor for stroke, with an incidence rate of 4-5% per year. The use of DOACs is recommended for specific patient populations however the risk of bleeding commonly precludes their use. Left atrial appendage occlusion is a relatively novel procedure recommended for such patients. We set out to analyse the initial success and safety of this procedure in a single site.

RESULTS

Twenty patients were included in the study with an average age of 81 years. Seventy percent (n = 14) were male. Ninety percent (n = 18) had a history of major bleeding, an absolute contraindication to anticoagulation. The mean CHADS2VaSc and HASBLED scores were 4.75 and 3.7, respectively. The technical success rate was 95% comparable with existing data. The procedural success rate in our study was 80%. The most frequent complication was cardiac tamponade, occurring in 10% of cases.

CONCLUSION

We report lower technical success and procedural success rates in an older population cohort than historically studied, 90% of whom had an absolute contraindication to oral anticoagulation, with higher CHADS2VaSc and HASBLED scores than commonly studied.

Comparison of intracardiac vs. transesophageal echocardiography for "one-stop" procedures of combined radiofrequency catheter ablation and left atrial appendage closure with the Watchman device in the treatment of atrial fibrillation

Background and objective

This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of "one-stop" procedures that combined radiofrequency catheter ablation and left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) with the Watchman device under the guidance of intracardiac echocardiography (ICE) vs. transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) in patients with atrial fibrillation.

Methods and results

In this study, we prospectively enrolled patients who underwent "one-stop" procedures under the guidance of ICE (n = 193, 109 men, 65.02 ± 8.47 years) or TEE (n = 109, 69 men, 64.23 ± 7.75 years) between January 2021 and October 2022. Intraprocedural thrombus formation in the left atrial appendage (LAA) was observed in 3 (1.46%) patients in the ICE group and 15 (11.63%) patients in the TEE group (P < 0.05) before LAAC. Total fluoroscopy time and dose in the ICE group were less than those in the TEE group. The total "one-stop" turnaround time and LAAC procedure time in the ICE group were significantly shorter than those in the TEE group (P < 0.05). Postoperative esophagus discomfort, nausea and vomiting, and hypotension were more often seen in the TEE group (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in matched cases between ICE and fluoroscopy measurements (P = 0.082). The TEE results related to LAAC and clinical events were similar between the two groups during the follow-up (P > 0.05).

Conclusion

The ICE-guided "one-stop" procedure was safe and feasible with less radiation exposure, shorter turnaround time, and fewer complications and intraoperative thrombus formations than the TEE group. ICE offered accurate measurements in the LAA dimension during LAAC. Echocardiography during the "one-stop" procedures was necessary to rule out the intraoperative thrombus.

Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion Strengths and Weaknesses of the Lobe-Only Occluder Concept in Theory and in Practice

Left atrial appendage closure aims to eliminate the stasis component of Virchow triad by eliminating a cul-de-sac that favors thrombosis, particularly when atrial contractility becomes inefficient, such as in atrial fibrillation. Left atrial appendage closure devices have a common objective of sealing the appendage completely, with device stability and avoidance of device thrombosis. Two main device designs have been used to perform left atrial appendage closure: those that use a pacifier design (lobe + disk) and those that use a plug (single lobe) design. This review highlights the potential features and benefits of the single-lobe devices.

The feasibility and safety of combining atrial septal defect/patent foramen ovale and left atrial appendage closure: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction

Atrial Septal Defect/Patent Foramen Ovale (ASD/PFO) occlusion is performed to prevent paradoxical embolism and reduce the risk of recurrent ischemic stroke. Left atrial appendage (LAA) closure is used as an alternative to medical therapy of non-valvular atrial fibrillation for prevention of stroke. Multiple studies have examined performing LAA and ASD/PFO occlusion. However, the feasibility and safety of combined occlusion of the left atrial appendage and ASD/PFO are not clear, furthermore, these studies are limited by their small sample sizes and retrospective analysis. In this study, we aimed to systematically review and meta-analyze the feasibility and safety of combining left atrial appendage and ASD/PFO closure.

Methods

PubMed, Web of Science, CNKI, Cochrane Library, Embase, and WanFang database were searched up to April 2022 to identify peer-reviewed human studies on assessing the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of combining left atrial appendage and ASD/PFO closure. The primary outcome was calculated: procedural feasibility outcome and procedural safety outcome.

Results

A total of 10 articles, including 340 patients from multiple countries, were included in the analysis. The principal findings of our study are: compared with single LAA closure, (i) combining PFO/ASD occlusion and LAA closure had similar procedural success proportion (98.43%, 95% CI: 96.67-100.00%), (ii) similar safety event incidences developed (1.67%, 95% CI: 0.24-3.92%), subgroup analyzed safety event incidences in death was 0.00 (95% CI: 0.00-0.33%), cardiac tamponade was 0.87% (95% CI: 0.00-2.77%), device embolization was 0.00 (95% CI: 0.00-0.60%), major bleeding was 0.00 (95% CI: 0.00-0.33%), stroke was 0.00 (95% CI: 0.00-0.02%).

Conclusion

Although this systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrate the technical feasibility and safety of combining closure of PFO/ASD and LAA, further studies of sufficient sample size, long-term follow-up, and rigor endpoint criteria are yet needed to fully evaluate this combination procedure for its role in clinical outcomes.

Long-term safety and efficacy of left atrial appendage closure in patients with small appendage orifices measured with transesophageal echocardiography

BACKGROUND

The Watchman device is the most widely used occluder but is indicated in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with a maximal left atrial appendage (LAA) orifice diameter between 17 and 31 mm. We aimed to compare the long-term safety and efficacy of left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) between patients with a small LAA (<17 mm) and those with an indicated LAA (17-31 mm) measured by transesophageal echocardiography (TEE).

METHODS

A total of 369 AF patients treated with LAAC between March 2015 and February 2019 were included and divided into two groups based on the maximal LAA orifice diameter measured by TEE: small LAA group (n = 22) and indicated LAA group (n = 347). Periprocedural complications and long-term clinical outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

The Watchman device was successfully implanted in all patients. Mean device compression was higher in the small LAA group. Four patients (1.2%) in the indicated LAA group experienced pericardial effusion, and none experienced pericardial effusion in the small LAA group. Device-related thrombus was detected in one (4.5%) patient in the small LAA group and five (1.4%) in the indicated LAA group (p = .310). After a mean follow-up period of 4.1 ± 1.6 years, one patient in the small LAA group (4.5%; 1.1/100 person-years) and four in the indicated LAA group (1.2%; 0.3/100 person-years) suffered an ischemic stroke (p = .266).

CONCLUSIONS

The safety and efficacy of LAAC with the Watchman device were comparable between patients with small and indicated LAA orifice diameters measured by TEE.

Peri-device leakage not CHA2DS2-VASc is associated with post-left atrial appendage closure cardiovascular event

OBJECTIVE

In patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF), the left atrial appendage occluder (LAAO) is an alternative treatment for stroke prevention. However, thromboembolic event still occur, and the predictors are unknown.

METHODS

The first Asian long-term follow-up study consisted of 308 patients with mean age 71.9±9.5 years, mean CHA₂DS₂-VASc 4.1 ± 1.8 since 2013. Primary outcome was defined as any type of ischemic stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA), systemic embolization and cardiovascular death.

RESULTS

There was no procedural-related TIA or stroke. After a mean follow-up of 38±16 months, the ischemic stroke/TIA rate was 1.9 and cardiovascular death rate 0.3 per 100 patient-year. The rate of peri-device leak (PDL) was 11.9% and device-related thrombus (DRT) 2.6%. In the multivariable analyses, PDL was the only independent predictor of stroke/TIA (hazard ratio 5.5, p=0.008). CHA₂DS₂-VASc score, prior history of stroke, DRT and post-procedural anti-thrombotic regimen/duration were not associated with outcomes. Implantation of Watchman was associated with PDL (odds ratio 4.35, p=0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

PDL is the only independent predictor of post-LAAO stroke. The risk of stroke for patients with NVAF may be controllable after LAA is occluded, because PDL is preventable and treatable.

Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion Strengths and Weaknesses of the Lobe-Only Occluder Concept in Theory and in Practice

Left atrial appendage closure aims to eliminate the stasis component of Virchow triad by eliminating a cul-de-sac that favors thrombosis, particularly when atrial contractility becomes inefficient, such as in atrial fibrillation. Left atrial appendage closure devices have a common objective of sealing the appendage completely, with device stability and avoidance of device thrombosis. Two main device designs have been used to perform left atrial appendage closure: those that use a pacifier design (lobe + disk) and those that use a plug (single lobe) design. This review highlights the potential features and benefits of the single-lobe devices.

Long-term outcomes of percutaneous left atrial appendage closure for the prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation: Asia-Pacific experience

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

In patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF), the left atrial appendage occluder (LAAO) is an alternative treatment for stroke prevention. However, the long-term outcomes in Asia was generally unknown.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This was a retrospective longitudinal study and a total of 124 patients with contraindications to oral anticoagulants or stroke despite under anticoagulants had been enrolled since 2013. Primary efficacy was defined as any type of stroke/systemic embolization and adverse event as any procedure or anti-thrombotic related complications. Twelve patients were excluded due to thrombus in the LAA or oversize LAA. Watchman was successfully implanted in 55 patients (98%) and ACP/Amulet also 55 patients (98%). During follow-up, the ischemic stroke rate was 1.9 in the Watchman and 1.4 per 100 patient-year in the ACP/Amulet group. There were 2 Watchman patients experiencing intracranial hemorrhage. Device-related thrombus (DRT) was noted in 3 patients (2.7%).There was no patient with peri-device lead ≧5 mm. In those patients receiving only local anesthesia, the follow-up echocardiography showed no significant peri-device leak, malposition of LAAO and DRT.

CONCLUSION

This long-term follow-up study shows that percutaneous closure of LAA is a safe and technically feasible procedure with satisfactory outcomes in Asia. The procedure success rate, efficacy and adverse event were similar to those reported in the Caucasian populations.

Safety and efficacy of left atrial appendage occlusion with the ACP or Watchman device guided by intracardiac echocardiography from the left atrium

Background

There is a paucity of randomized data regarding the safety and efficacy of the use of intracardiac echocardiography (ICE) from the left atrium (LA) to guide left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) procedures under local anesthesia using either of the available devices.

Hypothesis

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of ICE from the LA with transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) for guidance during transcatheter LAAO procedures.

Methods

Single‐center, cohort study of patients undergoing LAAO with the Amplatzer Cardiac Plug or Watchman device. Procedures were guided by ICE from the LA with local anesthesia (n = 175) or TEE under general anesthesia (n = 49). Efficacy outcomes were procedural success and peri‐device leaks 6 weeks after LAAO. The safety outcome was a composite of procedure‐related complications.

Results

Procedural success was similar between groups: 100% in the TEE‐guided group, and 98% in the ICE‐guided group. Procedure‐related complications such as death, embolism, migration, or major vascular complications occurred similarly between groups (p = 0.590). The rate and degree of peri‐device leaks or presence of a thrombus on the device did not differ between groups on follow‐up CT. Turnover time in the catheter laboratory and use of contrast agent were reduced with ICE.

Conclusions

ICE in the left atrium to guide LAAO procedures appears to be as effective and safe as TEE. There was no increase in procedure‐related complications, whatever the device used. ICE resulted in similar procedural success while decreasing procedure time and requiring only local anesthesia.

Intracardiac echocardiography for guidance of transcatheter left atrial appendage occlusion: An expert consensus document

Transcatheter left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) is an increasingly used alternative to oral anticoagulation in selected patients with atrial fibrillation. Intraprocedural imaging is a crucial for a successful intervention, with transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) as the current gold standard. Since some important limitations may affect TEE use, intracardiac echocardiography (ICE) is increasingly used as an alternative to TEE for guiding LAAO. The lack of a standardized imaging protocol has slowed the adoption of ICE into clinical practice. On the basis of current research and expert consensus, this paper provides a protocol for ICE support of left atrial appendage occlusion.

Safety and Feasibility of Same-Day Discharge After Left Atrial Appendage Closure With the WATCHMAN Device

Background:

As the use of left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) becomes more widespread, improvements in resource utilization and cost-effectiveness are necessary. Currently, there are limited data on same-day discharge (SDD) after LAAC. We aimed to evaluate the safety and feasibility of SDD versus non-SDD in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation who underwent LAAC.

Methods:

We retrospectively studied 211 patients who underwent the WATCHMAN procedure in a tertiary hospital (June 2016 to June 2019). The primary safety outcome was the composite of stroke, systemic embolism, major bleeding requiring transfusion, vascular complications requiring endovascular intervention, or death through 7 days (periprocedural) and 45 days post-procedure. The secondary outcomes were the individual components of the primary outcome and all-cause readmission. We compared the clinical outcomes of patients who had SDD and non-SDD post-procedure.

Results:

Patients with procedure-related complications on the day of LAAC and patients who were admitted for acute clinical events before LAAC were excluded. One hundred ninety patients were included in the final analysis. Seventy-two of 190 (38%) patients had SDD, and 118 of 190 (62%) had non-SDD. There were no statistically significant differences in the primary safety outcome through 7 days (1.4% versus 5.9%; P=0.26) and 45 days post-procedure (2.8% versus 9.3%; P=0.14) between the two groups. The secondary outcomes were similar in both groups. No patients had device-related thrombus on transesophageal echocardiography at 45 days. Only 1 patient from the non-SDD group had clinically significant peri-device flow (>5 mm) at 45 days.

Conclusions:

In a selected cohort of patients who underwent successful elective LAAC with WATCHMAN without same-day procedure-related complications, the primary safety outcome and secondary outcomes through 7 and 45 days post-procedure were similar in the SDD and non-SDD groups. Our findings are hypothesis generating and warrant further investigation in prospective trials.

Percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review recent evidence evaluating the long-term safety and efficacy outcomes of left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO), current guideline recommendations for LAAO use, performance of LAAO in comparison with direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) and recently approved LAAO device.

RECENT FINDINGS

The last 18 months have been marked with increasing evidence of the utility of LAAO in patients who are not candidates for long-term oral anticoagulation (OAC). Long-term data from two continued access registries to PROTECT-AF and PREVAIL support LAAO as a safe and effective long-term anticoagulation therapy. This new evidence led to class IIb recommendation for LAAO in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients not eligible for long-term OAC. PRAGUE-17 randomized controlled trial showed LAAO is noninferior to DOAC lending support to use of this modality in current era. PINNACLE FLX trial showed improved implant success and adequate closure rate which led to the device's Food and Drug Administration approval.

SUMMARY

In conclusion, percutaneous LAAO appears to be a promising option for NVAF patients who are not candidates for long-term OAC in the current era. Further evidence guiding optimal patient selection and periprocedural antithrombotic regimen will help identify the patients who would benefit the most from this procedure.

Meta-analysis of postoperative antithrombotic therapy after left atrial appendage occlusion

Objective

This meta-analysis explored the safety and effectiveness of different anticoagulant regimens after left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO).

Methods

Databases, such as PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library, were searched to identify eligible studies according to the inclusion criteria. The incidences of events, including device-related thrombus (DRT) formation, stroke, systemic thromboembolism, bleeding, cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality, were analyzed using R version 3.2.3.

Results

The screening retrieved 32 studies, including 36 study groups and 4,474 patients. The incidence of outcomes after LAAO was calculated via meta-analysis. In the subgroup analysis, the rates of DRT formation, cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality were significantly different among different antithrombotic methods. Single antiplatelet therapy was associated with the highest rate of adverse events, followed by dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT). Vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) and new oral anticoagulants (NOACs) carried lower rates of adverse events.

Conclusions

Anticoagulant therapy had better safety and efficacy than antiplatelet therapy. Thus, for patients with nonabsolute anticoagulant contraindications, anticoagulant therapy rather than DAPT should be actively selected. NOACs displayed potential for further development, and these treatments might represent alternatives to VKAs in the future.

Plugs for left atrial appendage occlusion: an overview of available devices

INTRODUCTION

Approximately one-third of all ischemic strokes and the ensuing health and economic burden can be attributed to the presence of atrial fibrillation (AF). The global prevalence of AF continues to rise, thus making it by far the most common diagnosed cardiac arrhythmia. Percutaneous left atrial appendage (LAA) occlusion or obliteration has been developed to protect from the occurrence of stroke in patients with nonvalvular AF.

AREAS COVERED

We address the characteristics and techniques for implantation as well as some clinical registries and randomized trials of the various catheter-based devices for the occlusion of the LAA that are either currently available or in the clinical evaluation stage.

EXPERT OPINION

Over less than 2 decades, LAA occlusion progressed from being a concept applied in a few specialized centers to a globally recognized procedure implemented in numerous hospitals as part of daily interventional practice. The respective devices are to date safer and easier to deploy than initially. Periprocedural and postprocedural complications will continue to decrease as already evident from prospective randomized trials and registries. Although current indications focus on patients with nonvalvular AF and contraindications for oral anticoagulation, it is all but certain that the future will bring a widening in the spectrum of indications, applicability, and usage of these devices.

Comparison of fluoroscopy and transesophageal echocardiogram for intra-procedure device surveillance assessment during implantation of Watchman

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate intraprocedural assessments using transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) and fluoroscopy during left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) with the WATCHMAN device.

METHOD

A total of 208 patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing LAAO were included in this study[101 standard procedures (retrospective cohort) and 107 with fluoroscopy-alone approach (prospective cohort). Individual device position, anchoring, compression and peri-device leak (PDL) were successively analyzed based on TEE and fluoroscopy in the retrospective cohort to summarize detailed fluoroscopic assessments for prospective application. Clinical outcomes were assessed between two cohorts.

RESULTS

For retrospective cohort, TEE and fluoroscopy agreed on device position and anchoring. Compression upon fluoroscopy was well correlated with 2D-TEE (r = 0.908) and the difference in overall detection of PDL was not statistically significant between two imaging modalities (p = 0.304). For the prospective cohort with fluoroscopy-guidance alone, implantation success was similar to that of the retrospective cohort (98.13% vs 100%, p = 0.498). The incidence rate of major clinical adverse events was relatively higher in prospective cohort during hospitalization and follow-up but did not reach significant difference (5.61% vs 1.98%; 0.99% vs 0.93%, p > 0.05). Moreover, the prospective group presented with shorter procedural duration, shorter in-hospital stay and lower total hospitalization cost than retrospective group.

CONCLUSION

LAAO performed by experienced operators in large volume centers is feasible under fluoroscopy guidance. However, there is still a trend in favor of TEE for greater procedural safety and more complete LAA seal. We suggest that this minimalist approach could be proposed in cases with contraindication to general anesthesia and/or TEE.

Propensity-matched comparison of antiplatelet versus anticoagulant after left atrial appendage closure with the Watchman

BACKGROUND

Optimal antithrombotic therapy following left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) with the Watchman occluder remains uncertain. This study retrospectively compared clinical outcomes of a 3-month dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT group) and a protocol of anticoagulation plus aspirin for 45 days followed by DAPT for 6 months (ACT group) after LAAC with the Watchman device.

METHODS

Of two Watchman registries (Coburg and Lichtenfels hospitals, Germany), 220 and 304 consecutive patients with successful LAAC were included. Patients in Coburg hospital received DAPT while they received ACT in Lichtenfels. After a 1:1 propensity score matching, 174 (DAPT) versus 174 (ACT) patients were compared by use of the primary efficacy endpoint of thromboembolic events and cardiovascular/unexplained death, the primary safety endpoint of nonprocedural related major bleeding events at follow-up, and the combined hazard endpoint, a composite of all above-mentioned hazards.

RESULTS

The mean age 77.5 ± 7.2 (DAPT) versus 77.3 ± 7.1 (ACT) years, CHA₂ DS₂ -VASc score 4.6 ± 1.5 versus 4.7 ± 1.6, and HAS-BLED score 3.3 ± 0.8 versus 3.3 ± 0.8 were similar. After 12 months, the clinical efficacy (13/174, 7.4% [DAPT] vs 11/174, 6.3% [ACT]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.38-1.86; P = .66) and safety (6/174, 3.4% vs 8/174, 4.5%; HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.29-2.56; P = .79) as well as the combined hazard endpoint (18/174, 10.3% vs 18/174, 10.3%; HR,1.01; 95% CI, 0.53-1.95; P = .97) were comparable.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests comparable efficacy and safety of 3-month DAPT versus 6 weeks ACT plus aspirin following LAAC with the Watchman.

Meta-Analysis Comparing WatchmanTM and Amplatzer Devices for Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation

Background: For patients with atrial fibrillation who are at high risk for bleeding or who cannot tolerate oral anticoagulation, left atrial appendage (LAA) closure represents an alternative therapy for reducing risk for thromboembolic events. Objectives: To compare the efficacy and safety of the Amplatzer and Watchman^TM LAA closure devices. Methods: A meta-analysis was performed of studies comparing the safety and efficacy outcomes of the two devices. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to appraise study quality. Results: Six studies encompassing 614 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Overall event rates were low for both devices. No significant differences between the devices were found in safety outcomes (i.e., pericardial effusion, cardiac tamponade, device embolization, air embolism, and vascular complications) or in the rates of all-cause mortality, cardiac death, stroke/transient ischemic attack, or device-related thrombosis. The total bleeding rate was significantly lower in the Watchman^TM group (Log OR = -0.90; 95% CI = -1.76 to -0.04; p = 0.04), yet no significant differences was found when the bleeding rate was categorized into major and minor bleeding. Total peridevice leakage rate and insignificant peridevice leakage rate were significantly higher in the Watchman^TM group (Log OR = 1.32; 95% CI = 0.76 to 1.87; p < 0.01 and Log OR = 1.11; 95% CI = 0.50 to 1.72; p < 0.01, respectively). However, significant peridevice leakages were similar in both the devices. Conclusions: The LAA closure devices had low complication rates and low event rates. Efficacy and safety were similar between the systems, except for a higher percentage of insignificant peridevice leakages in the Watchman^TM group. A randomized controlled trial comparing both devices is underway, which may provide more insight on the safety and efficacy outcomes comparison of the devices.

Left atrial appendage occlusion with the Amplatzer Amulet: update on device sizing

PURPOSE

The present paper analyzes the role of different imaging modalities for left atrial appendage (LAA) assessment and the recommended specific measurements to improve device selection with regard to the Amulet device.

BACKGROUND

Morphological LAA assessment is one of the pivotal factors to achieve proper LAA sealing and potentially reduce the risk of complications by minimizing manipulation inside the appendage.

METHODS

Eight experienced physicians in LAAO were asked to contribute in the preparation of a device sizing consensus manuscript after comprehensive assessment of previous published data on LAA imaging/measurement.

RESULTS

LAA morphology is often complex and requires more detailed spatial resolution and 3-dimensional assessments to reduce the risk of mis-sizing. Traditionally, upsizing of devices based upon the largest measured LAA diameters have been used. However, this may lead to oversizing in markedly elliptical appendages. Thus, when 3D imaging modalities are available, utilizing the LAA mean diameters might be a better alternative. Operators should also note the systematic biases in differences in measurements obtained with different imaging modalities, with CT giving the largest measurements, followed by 3D-TEE, and then 2D-TEE and angiography. In fact, for 2D imaging techniques (2D-TEE and angiography), LAA diameters tend to be underestimated, and therefore, LAA largest diameters seem to be still the best option for device sizing. Some specific anatomies such as proximal chicken-wing or conic LAAs may require different measurements and implantations to achieve implant success.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, LAA mean diameters might be a better alternative to largest diameters when 3D imaging modalities are available.

Intracardiac Versus Transesophageal Echocardiographic Guidance for Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion: The LAAO Italian Multicenter Registry

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of intracardiac echocardiography (ICE)-guided versus transesophageal echocardiography (TEE)-guided left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) by the use of Amplatzer Cardiac Plug or Amulet devices included in a large Italian registry.

BACKGROUND

TEE is widely used for LAAO procedure guidance. ICE may be a potential alternative imaging modality in LAAO.

METHODS

Data from 604 LAAO procedures performed in 16 Italian centers were reviewed. ICE-guided LAAO was performed in 187 patients, whereas TEE was used in 417 patients. Procedural success was defined as LAAO without occurrence of pericardial tamponade, stroke, systemic embolism with end organ damage, major bleeding, and device embolization. Stroke, transient ischemic attack, major bleeding, overall and cardiovascular death were analyzed.

RESULTS

CHA₂DS₂-VASc (congestive heart failure, hypertension, age ≥75 years, diabetes mellitus, prior stroke or transient ischemic attack or thromboembolism, vascular disease, age 65 to 74 years, sex category) and HAS-BLED (hypertension, abnormal renal and liver function, stroke, bleeding, labile international normalized ratio, elderly, drugs or alcohol) scores were similar between the ICE and TEE groups. TEE implied lower procedural (delta 12 min) and fluoroscopy time (delta 5 min) when compared with ICE. Procedural success was similarly high (≥94%) between the TEE and ICE groups with a complication rate of 6.5% for TEE versus 4.2% for ICE (odds ratio: 1.468; 95% confidence interval: 0.681 to 3.166; p = 0.327). At median follow-up of 451 days (interquartile range: 162 to 899 days), the rate of cerebral ischemic events was similar between TEE-guided and ICE-guided procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

ICE-guided LAAO by means of Amplatzer devices may represent a second alternative imaging modality after an appropriate learning curve and bearing in mind that pre-procedural computed tomography imaging is mandatory. When comparing ICE with TEE, TEE remains the gold standard.

Combination of left atrial appendage closure and catheter ablation in a single procedure for patients with atrial fibrillation: Multicenter experience

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Experience in procedures combining left atrial appendage (LAA) closure (LAAC) and catheter ablation (CA) was scarce in Chinese nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with high risks for stroke and bleeding. We aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of the combination therapy with LAAC and AF CA in a single procedure based on the multicenter data and medium-term follow-up results.

METHODS

A total of 122 AF patients with a mean CHA₂DS₂-VASc score of 4.3 ± 1.4 and HAS-BLED score of 3.3 ± 1.0 were enrolled. The Watchman (n = 83) devices were implanted either before or after AF ablations in the same procedure, while the Amplatzer Cardiac Plug (ACP, n = 39) devices were implanted immediately after CA. AF recurrence and transesophageal echocardiography results were evaluated.

RESULTS

All devices were successfully implanted and acute complete LAA occlusions were achieved in 115 (94.3%) of patients. Neither acute nor chronic peri-device leaks greater than 5 mm were detected. Oral anticoagulation was held in all patients but two with asymptomatic device-related thrombi, which were resolved after prolonged anticoagulation. AF-free success rate without antiarrhythmic drugs was 76.2% after a mean follow-up of 11.5 ± 6.8 months. No serious complications were observed during the follow-up.

CONCLUSION

The combination therapy with LAAC and AF ablation in a single procedure was efficacious and safe in the Chinese symptomatic AF population with high risk for stroke and bleeding.

Day-case percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion-Safety and efficacy

OBJECTIVES

We evaluated the safety and efficacy of percutaneous left atrial appendage (LAA) occlusion performed as a day case procedure.

BACKGROUND

LAA occlusion has been shown to be safe and effective for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation. It has not been shown if the procedure can safely be performed on a day-case basis.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis was made of 117 LAA occlusion procedures in a single large teaching hospital in the UK. Procedural success, procedural complications, length of stay, and readmission data were examined.

RESULTS

Successful deployment of a device was possible in all but one patient (whose appendage was too large). Major in-hospital complications occurred in 1.7% of patients (both femoral vascular). Same-day discharge was made in 66% of patients overall. Since January 2016, only 3 of 59 patients (5%) have remained in hospital overnight following LAAO. Echocardiography 2-4 hr postprocedure was undertaken prior to discharge. One patient was readmitted within 7 days but this readmission would not have been prevented by overnight stay.

CONCLUSIONS

LAA occlusion can be safely performed as a day case procedure with acceptable complication rates and no increment of complications related to the lack of routine overnight stay.

The cessation of oral anticoagulation following left atrial appendage surgery

Atrial fibrillation is associated with a significantly increased risk of stroke, and oral anticoagulation is the mainstay of preventative treatment. Scenarios arise where the risks of treatment with oral anticoagulation may outweigh the benefits, most commonly when there is an elevated risk of bleeding. Studies of percutaneous closure of the left atrial appendage have strongly implicated this structure in the etiology of stroke in atrial fibrillation, and provide some rationale for the discontinuation of oral anticoagulation following percutaneous closure device implantation. A common clinical concern is the safety of cessation of oral anticoagulation after surgical closure of the left atrial appendage in patients with a history of atrial fibrillation. Here, we review the evidence guiding this management decision and draw comparison with data on percutaneous closure.

Left Atrial Appendages Occlusion: Current Status and Prospective

Stroke continues to be a major cause of morbidity and mortality in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients. Oral anticoagulation (OAC) provides protection against stroke and peripheral embolization in AF but significant proportion of patients could not be started on anticoagulation because of bleeding complications. Left atrial appendage harbors clot in about 90% of nonvalvular AF. The advent of left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) techniques has provided these patients with alternative to OAC for stroke prophylaxis. Multiple LAAO devices are currently available with Watchman and Amulet being the most commonly used in clinical practice. Randomized studies are available for Watchman device only. Data on Amplatzer Cardiac Plug, Amulet and Lariat devices are limited by the paucity of randomized data. Long-term data on different LAAO techniques are showing promising results. Device related thrombosis continues to be a serious complication associated with LAAO. Future studies should look into comparative effectiveness between different LAAO techniques, optimal patient selection, risk of complications, and anticoagulant treatment after LAAO. This article aims to provide current available evidence on efficacy and safety of different LAAO devices and future prospective.

Left atrial appendage occlusion: rationale, evidence, devices, and patient selection

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a worldwide epidemic associated with significant morbidity and mortality, often due to disabling or fatal thromboembolic stroke. Oral anticoagulation is highly effective at preventing ischaemic stroke and improving all-cause survival in patients with non-valvular AF. Despite the efficacy of oral anticoagulation, many patients are not treated due to either absolute or perceived contraindications to therapy, including bleeding. Left atrial appendage (LAA) closure has emerged as a mechanical alternative to pharmacologic stroke prevention. Initial and mid-term clinical trial data suggest that LAA closure is safe, with less intracranial bleeding, and a net clinical benefit that appears to be non-inferior to oral anticoagulation. However, concern remains over the possible increased risk of ischaemic stroke in long-term follow-up. Careful patient selection for LAA closure is paramount. Patients with prior intracranial bleeding or recurrent serious bleeding who are not eligible for long-term oral anticoagulation are typical candidates for LAA closure; however, other populations may benefit as well, such as patients with end-stage renal disease. Clinical investigation and randomized trials are needed to clarify the best methods of LAA occlusion, optimal pharmacologic strategies in the short-term after LAA closure, and to identify patient populations who will derive the most benefit from LAA occlusion. In this article, we review the rationale for LAA closure, the currently available devices and their evidence base, patient selection, challenges in management, and future directions for LAA closure science.

Long-term outcomes following percutaneous left atrial appendage closure in patients with atrial fibrillation and contraindications to anticoagulation

PURPOSE

We aimed to evaluate the late clinical outcomes of percutaneous LAA closure in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and contraindication to oral anticoagulation.

METHODS

Consecutive AF patients with contraindications to oral anticoagulation who underwent successful LAA closure between December 2008 and March 2013 at four centers were included.

RESULTS

A total of 101 patients (median age 76 [IQR 69-80] years, 48% women, mean CHA₂DS₂-VASc 5 ± 2; HAS-BLED 4 ± 1) were included. Eighty-six (85.1%) patients received an Amplatzer Cardiac Plug/Amulet device and 15 (14.9%) patients a Watchman device. The mean follow-up period was 4 ± 1 years. During 358.6 patient-years of follow-up, 7 (6.9%) patients suffered a major stroke (2 cases per 100 person-years; expected rate: 6.2 cases per 100 person-years), and 20 (19.8%) patients experienced at least one episode of major bleeding (6.4 cases per 100 person-years; expected rate: 9.0 cases per 100 person-years). There were no cases of late adverse events related to the device. A total of 34 (33.7%) patients died during follow-up (9.5 cases per 100 person-years). Older age, male sex, low ejection fraction, and chronic kidney disease were identified as predictive factors of late mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Percutaneous LAA closure is safe and effective in the long term in patients with AF with contraindications to anticoagulation. However, a high long-term mortality rate was observed in this high-risk population. Comprehensive patient assessment prior to undergoing LAA closure should identify patients in whose comorbidities limit their overall prognosis.

Transcatheter left atrial appendage occlusion in patients with atrial fibrillation and a high bleeding risk using aspirin alone for post-implant antithrombotic therapy

AIMS

The aim of the study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) with the AMPLATZER Cardiac Plug (ACP) or Amulet using aspirin alone (ASA) as post-implantation antithrombotic treatment.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This was a single-centre, prospective, non-randomised study on LAAO with the ACP or Amulet in a consecutive cohort (n=110) treated by ASA alone post implantation. The primary outcome was device-related thrombosis, while secondary outcomes were ischaemic stroke or major bleeding. Clinical follow-up was conducted after six weeks and 12 months with TEE and cardiac CT. One hundred and seven patients were included in the analysis. Three patients were excluded due to a mechanical valve prosthesis. CHA2DS2-VASc score was 4.4±1.6 and HAS-BLED 4.1±1.1. Successful implantation was obtained in all patients with a periprocedural complication rate of 4.6%. Median follow-up was 2.3 years, with a total of 265 patient-years. Device-related thrombosis was detected in 2/107 (1.9%) cases. Stroke occurred in 6/107 patients, with an annualised rate of 2.3%, which is a 61% risk reduction compared to the predicted rate. Annual risk of major bleeding was reduced by 57%.

CONCLUSIONS

LAAO with the ACP or Amulet was safely performed with ASA monotherapy after implantation without an increased risk of device-related thrombosis or stroke.

First results of the Brazilian Registry of Percutaneous Left Atrial Appendage Closure

Background

Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) is an effective alternative to oral anticoagulation (OA) for the prevention of stroke in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF).

Objective

To present the immediate results and late outcomes of patients submitted to LAAC and included in the Brazilian Registry of Percutaneous Left Atrial Appendage Closure.

Methods

91 patients with NVAF, high stroke risk (CHA₂DS₂VASc score = 4.5 ± 1.5) and restrictions to OAC (HAS-BLED score = 3.6 ± 1.0) underwent 92 LAAC procedures using either the Amplatzer cardiac plug or the Watchman device in 11 centers in Brazil, between late 2010 and mid 2016.

Results

Ninety-six devices were used (1.04 device/procedure, including an additional non-dedicated device), with a procedural success rate of 97.8%. Associated procedures were performed in 8.7% of the patients. Complete LAAC was obtained in 93.3% of the successful cases. In cases of incomplete closure, no residual leak was larger than 2.5 mm. One patient needed simultaneous implantation of 2 devices. There were 7 periprocedural major (5 pericardial effusions requiring pericardiocentesis, 1 non-dedicated device embolization and 1 coronary air embolism without sequelae) and 4 minor complications. After 128.6 patient-years of follow-up there were 3 deaths unrelated to the procedure, 2 major bleedings (one of them in a patient with an unsuccessful LAAC), thrombus formation over the device in 2 cases (both resolved after resuming OAC for 3 months) and 2 strokes (2.2%).

Conclusions

In this multicenter, real world registry, that included patients with NVAF and high thromboembolic and bleeding risks, LAAC effectively prevented stroke and bleeding when compared to the expected rates based on CHA₂DS₂VASc and HASBLED scores for this population. Complications rate of the procedure was acceptable considering the beginning of the learning curve of most of the involved operators.

Percutaneous closure of the left atrial appendage in patients with diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

Left atrial appendage closure is a preventive treatment of atrial fibrillation-related thrombo-embolism. Patients with diabetes mellitus have increased risk for a negative outcome in percutaneous cardiac interventions. We assessed whether percutaneous left atrial appendage closure is safe and effective in patients with diabetes mellitus.

METHODS

We included 78 patients (mean age of 74.4 ± 8.3 years) with indication for left atrial appendage closure in an open-label observational single-centre study.

RESULTS

Patients with diabetes mellitus ( n = 31) were at higher thrombo-embolic and bleeding risk (CHA₂DS₂-VASc: 4.5 ± 0.9, HAS-BLED: 4.7 ± 0.7) compared to patients without diabetes mellitus ( n = 47, CHA₂DS₂-VASc: 3.5 ± 1.0, HAS-BLED: 4.1 ± 0.8; p < 0.001 for both). Pre- and periprocedural risk was elevated in patients with diabetes mellitus (Euro II-Score: 6.6 ± 3.7 vs 3.9 ± 1.9, p < 0.01; Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS)-Score: 4.0 ± 2.5 vs 2.6 ± 1.2, p < 0.01). Procedural success was similar. Periprocedural major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events occurred in one patient from the control group (2.1%), whereas patients with diabetes mellitus had no events ( p = 0.672). Follow-up of 6 months revealed no bleeding complication in both groups. No stroke occurred in follow-up, and left atrial appendage flow velocity reduction (55.6 ± 38.6 vs 51.4 ± 19.1 cm/s, p = 0.474) and rate of postinterventional leakage in the left atrial appendage were comparable (0% vs 2.1%, p = 0.672).

CONCLUSION

Despite patients with diabetes mellitus are high-risk patients, the outcome of percutaneous left atrial appendage closure is similar to patients without diabetes mellitus.

Left atrial appendage occlusion for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a commonly sustained atrial arrhythmia with associated morbidity and mortality. AF is associated with increased risk of thromboembolism and stroke, requiring use of anticoagulation. Anticoagulation decreases the risk of stroke but is associated with a higher risk of bleeding, necessitating discontinuation in some patients. The left atrial appendage is the likely source of thrombus in the majority of patients with AF. This has led to the development of left atrial appendage occlusion as a means to reduce stroke risk in patients who have a contraindication to long-term anticoagulation. Multiple implantable devices have surfaced in the last few years, with some promising prospects. The main purpose of this review is to highlight the indications and use of these devices for left atrial appendage occlusion.

2017 consensus of the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society on stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained arrhythmia, causing a 2-fold increase in mortality and a 5-fold increase in stroke. The Asian population is rapidly aging, and in 2050, the estimated population with AF will reach 72 million, of whom 2.9 million may suffer from AF-associated stroke. Therefore, stroke prevention in AF is an urgent issue in Asia. Many innovative advances in the management of AF-associated stroke have emerged recently, including new scoring systems for predicting stroke and bleeding risks, the development of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs), knowledge of their special benefits in Asians, and new techniques. The Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS) aimed to update the available information, and appointed the Practice Guideline sub-committee to write a consensus statement regarding stroke prevention in AF. The Practice Guidelines sub-committee members comprehensively reviewed updated information on stroke prevention in AF, emphasizing data on NOACs from the Asia Pacific region, and summarized them in this 2017 Consensus of the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society on Stroke Prevention in AF. This consensus includes details of the updated recommendations, along with their background and rationale, focusing on data from the Asia Pacific region. We hope this consensus can be a practical tool for cardiologists, neurologists, geriatricians, and general practitioners in this region. We fully realize that there are gaps, unaddressed questions, and many areas of uncertainty and debate in the current knowledge of AF, and the physician׳s decision remains the most important factor in the management of AF.

Left atrial appendage occlusion with the AMPLATZER Amulet device: an expert consensus step-by-step approach

AIMS

This document aims to describe a standardised methodology for performing left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) using the AMPLATZER Amulet device, and to provide useful tips and tricks for operators with different levels of experience.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Physicians who are experts in LAAO and had personal clinical experience with the AMPLATZER Amulet device were asked to contribute in the preparation of this consensus document. Twenty-seven physicians (20 interventional cardiologists and 7 electrophysiologists) from 14 different countries reviewed the manuscript. A step-by-step approach, simulating a real case, was followed. Starting with patient selection and planning, related cardiac imaging is discussed, followed by vascular access - transseptal puncture optimisation. Then, angiographic calibration/sizing and the required fluoroscopy views are explained and a device sizing strategy is proposed. Device preparation and de-airing is briefly described, followed by sheath exchange, device deployment steps, evaluation of device stability and decision for final release. The way to recapture and change a device is then shown, together with some additional tips on how to deal with challenging anatomies like "chicken wing" left atrial appendage. Finally, for operators who are switching from AMPLATZER Cardiac Plug to Amulet, the main differences between the two devices with respect to implantation technique are presented.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, this document reflects a consensus approach by expert implanters on the steps of LAAO technique and best practices for implantation of the AMPLATZER Amulet device, along with some practical tips to minimise the complication rate.

Incidence and Clinical Impact of Device-Associated Thrombus and Peri-Device Leak Following Left Atrial Appendage Closure With the Amplatzer Cardiac Plug

OBJECTIVES

Routine device surveillance after successful left atrial appendage closure is recommended to evaluate for intermediate to late complications. The aim of this study was to assess the incidence and clinical impact of these complications on cardiovascular events.

METHODS

Centers participating in the Amplatzer Cardiac Plug multicenter study were requested to submit their post-procedural transesophageal echocardiograms for independent adjudication. Thirteen of 22 centers contributed all their post-procedural echocardiograms, which included 344 from 605 consecutive patients. These images were submitted to a core laboratory and reviewed by 2 independent experts for peri-device leak, device-associated thrombus, device embolization, device migration, left atrial appendage thrombus, and left atrial thrombus. Clinical events were prospectively collected by each center.

RESULTS

Of the 344 transesophageal echocardiograms, 339 were deemed analyzable. Patients' mean age was 74.4 ± 7.5 years, and 67.3% were men. The mean CHADS2 score was 2.7 ± 1.3, the mean CHA2DS2-VASc score was 4.3 ± 1.5, and the mean HAS-BLED score was 3.0 ± 1.2. Amplatzer Cardiac Plug implantation was successful in all patients. Periprocedural major adverse events occurred in 2.4%. Median clinical follow-up duration was 355 days (range 179 to 622 days). Follow-up transesophageal echocardiography was performed after a median of 134 days (range 88 to 227 days). Device-associated thrombus was observed in 3.2% and peri-device leak in 12.5% (5.5% minimal, 5.8% mild, 0.6% moderate, 0.6% severe). Neither device-associated thrombus nor peri-device leak was associated with an increased risk for cardiovascular events. Independent predictors of device-associated thrombus were smoking (odds ratio: 5.79; p = 0.017) and female sex (odds ratio: 4.22; p = 0.027).

CONCLUSIONS

Following successful left atrial appendage closure with the Amplatzer Cardiac Plug, the presence of peri-device leak was relatively low, and device-associated thrombus was infrequent. Neither was associated with increased risk for thromboembolism.

Left atrial appendage occlusion: A better alternative to anticoagulation?

Non-valvular atrial fibrillation is associated with a significantly increased risk of embolic stroke due to blood clot forming predominantly in the left atrial appendage (LAA). Preventive measures to avoid embolic events are permanent administration of anticoagulants or surgical closure of the LAA. Various clinical trials provide evidence about safety, effectiveness and therapeutic success of LAA occlusion using various cardiac occluder devices. The use of such implants for interventional closure of the LAA is likely to become a valuable alternative for stroke prevention, especially in patients with contraindication for oral anticoagulation as safety, clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness of LAA occlusion has recently been demonstrated.