Left atrial appendage closure: A single center experience and comparison of two contemporary devices

Residual leaks following percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion and outcomes: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Residual leaks are not infrequent after left atrial appendage occlusion. However, there is still uncertainty regarding their prognostic implications. The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of residual leaks after left atrial appendage occlusion.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted until 19 February 2023. Residual leaks comprised peri-device leaks (PDLs) on transoesophageal echocardiography (TEE) or computed tomography (CT), as well as left atrial appendage patency on CT. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed to assess the clinical impact of residual leaks.

RESULTS

Overall 48 eligible studies (44 non-randomized/observational and 4 randomized studies) including 61 666 patients with atrial fibrillation who underwent left atrial appendage occlusion were analysed. Peri-device leak by TEE was present in 26.1% of patients. Computed tomography-based left atrial appendage patency and PDL were present in 54.9% and 57.3% of patients, respectively. Transoesophageal echocardiography-based PDL (i.e. any reported PDL regardless of its size) was significantly associated with a higher risk of thromboembolism [pooled odds ratio (pOR) 2.04, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.52-2.74], all-cause mortality (pOR 1.16, 95% CI: 1.08-1.24), and major bleeding (pOR 1.12, 95% CI: 1.03-1.22), compared with no reported PDL. A positive graded association between PDL size and risk of thromboembolism was noted across TEE cut-offs. For any PDL of >0, >1, >3, and >5 mm, the pORs for thromboembolism were 1.82 (95% CI: 1.35-2.47), 2.13 (95% CI: 1.04-4.35), 4.14 (95% CI: 2.07-8.27), and 4.44 (95% CI: 2.09-9.43), respectively, compared with either no PDL or PDL smaller than each cut-off. Neither left atrial appendage patency, nor PDL by CT was associated with thromboembolism (pOR 1.45 and 1.04, 95% CI: 0.84-2.50 and 0.52-2.07, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Peri-device leak detected by TEE was associated with adverse events, primarily thromboembolism. Residual leaks detected by CT were more frequent but lacked prognostic significance.

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.

Impact and predictors of device-related thrombus after percutaneous left atrial appendage closure

Device-related thrombus (DRT) is a known complication occurring in up to 7% of patients undergoing percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC). Since the target population of LAAC is generally ineligible for oral anticoagulant therapies, DRT raises important concerns. The aim of this review will be to summarize available evidence on DRT after LAAC focusing on its possible impact on outcomes. Recent findings showed a tighter association between DRT and neurological ischemic events. Antithrombotic regimen adopted after LAAC may have a protective effect against DRT. Many patient-related and procedural factors have been identified as possible predictors of DRT. A tailored approach, which takes into account DRT, is needed in the patient selection for LAAC and in the postprocedural follow-up.

Clinical efficacy and safety comparison of Watchman device versus ACP/Amulet device for percutaneous left atrial appendage closure in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: A study-level meta-analysis of clinical trials

Left atrial appendage occlusion is not inferior to oral anticoagulants in the prevention of stroke in several randomized controlled trials. However, the clinical efficacy and safety comparison of the Watchman and amplatzer cardiac plug (ACP)/Amulet devices for percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation was controversial. A database search was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Clinicaltrials.gov for trials that compared Watchman device vs ACP/Amulet device. The effective outcomes were stroke and systemic embolism. Safety outcomes were all-cause death, cardiovascular death, and major bleeding. Device-related complications included device-related thrombus (DRT), peri-device leaks (PDL > 5 mm). A total of 19 articles involving 6224 patients were included in the present study. The Watchman and ACP/Amulet groups comprised 3267 and 2957 patients, respectively. No statistically significant differences were detected in the stroke (odd ratio [OR]:1.24, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.92-1.67, p = .17, I²  = 0), systemic embolism (OR:1.10, 95% CI: 0.51-2.35, p = .81, I²  = 0%), all-cause death (OR:0.97, 95% CI: 0.80-1.18, p = .77, I²  = 1%), cardiogenic death (OR:0.99, 95% CI: 0.77-1.29, p = .96, I²  = 0%), major bleeding (OR:1.18, 95% CI: 0.98-1.43, p = .08, I²  = 25%). DRT (OR:1.48, 95% CI: 1.06-2.06, p = .02, I²  = 0%) and PDL > 5 mm (OR:2.57, 95% CI: 1.63-4.04, p < .0001, I²  = 0%) were significantly lower in ACP/Amulet group compared to Watchman group. The effective and safety outcomes were comparable between two groups. ACP/Amulet group had significantly lower rates of DRT and PDL > 5 mm than Watchman group.

Safety and efficacy of the Amplatzer amulet and watchman2.5 for left atrial appendage occlusion: a Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) is an alternative to oral anticoagulation (OAC) to decrease the risk of stroke in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF); however, certain complications remain a concern. Amplatzer Amulet and Watchman are the two most popular used devices for preventing stroke in patients with NVAF. We assessed the safety and efficacy of LAAO using the Amplatzer Amulet and Watchman.

METHODS

A meta-analysis was conducted to compare the safety and efficacy outcomes associated with the use of the Amplatzer Amulet and Watchman 2.5. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale has been utilized to assess the quality of study.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis includes seven studies involving 2,926 patients (1,418 patients with an amulet and 1,508 with a Watchman 2.5). Generally, adverse event rates for both systems were minimal. No significant differences between the two devices were found in safety (pericardial effusion, device embolization, and cardiac tamponade) or efficacy outcomes (death, TIA, stroke, major/minor bleeding, device leak, and thromboembolic events).

CONCLUSIONS

The data suggest LAAO is a safe procedure, regardless of which device was used. LAAO devices generally have low complication rates. Outcomes were comparable between the two groups with no significant differences in their safety or efficacy. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Comparison between Amplatzer and Watchman left atrial appendage closure devices for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation：a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The Amplatzer and Watchman left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) devices are the two most frequently used devices for left atrial appendage closure devices worldwide. This meta-analysis aims to compare the safety and efficacy of the two devices.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library for studies up to 6 February 2022 that compared the safety and efficacy of the Amplatzer and Watchman devices.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies including 2,150 patients in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 2,526 patients in observational studies were included in the meta-analysis. Amplatzer device was associated with higher rates of major procedure-related complications (odds ratio [OR]: 1.99, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.45-2.74, P <0.0001) and device embolization (OR: 1.99, 95% CI: 1.09-3.64, P =0.03). However, Amplatzer device had lower rates of total peridevice leak (PDL) (OR:0.48, 95% CI: 0.27-0.83, P =0.009), significant PDL (OR:0.27, 95% CI: 0.12-0.57, P =0.0007) and device-related thrombus (DRT) (OR:0.67, 95% CI: 0.48-0.95, P =0.02). No statistical differences were observed between the two devices in other safety and efficacy endpoints, such as pericardial effusion, cardiac tamponade, air embolism, vascular complications, ischemic stroke/ transient ischemic attack (TIA), hemorrhagic stroke, all-cause death, cardiovascular death and bleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

Amplatzer LAAC device was associated with higher rates of major procedure-related complications, especially in device embolization. Watchman LAAC device was associated with higher rates of PDL and DRT. There were no significant differences between two devices in ischemic stroke/TIA, hemorrhagic stroke, all-cause death, cardiovascular death and bleeding.

Amulet or Watchman Device for Percutaneous Left Atrial Appendage Closure: Primary Results of the SWISS-APERO Randomized Clinical Trial

Background: No study has so far compared Amulet with the new Watchman FLX in terms of residual left atrial appendage (LAA) patency or clinical outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous LAA closure (LAAC). Methods: In the investigator-initiated SWISS APERO trial, patients undergoing LAAC were randomized (1:1) open-label to receive Amulet or Watchman 2.5 or FLX (Watchman) across 8 European centres. The primary endpoint was the composite of justified crossover to a non-randomized device during LAAC procedure or residual LAA patency detected by cardiac computed tomography angiography (CCTA) at 45 days. The secondary endpoints included procedural complications, device related thrombus (DRT), peridevice leak (PDL) at transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) and clinical outcomes at 45 days. Results: Between June 2018, and May 2021, 221 patients were randomly assigned to Amulet (111 [50.2%]) or Watchman (110 [49.8%]), of whom 25 (22.7%) patients included before October 2019 received Watchman 2.5, and 85 (77.3%) patients received Watchman FLX. The primary endpoint was assessable in 205 (92.8%) patients and occurred in 71 (67.6%) Amulet and 70 (70.0%) Watchman patients respectively (risk ratio [RR] 0.97 [95% CI 0.80- 1.16]; P=0.713). A single justified cross-over occurred in an Amulet patient who fulfilled LAA patency criteria at 45-day CCTA. Major procedure related complications occurred more frequently in the Amulet group (9.0% vs. 2.7%; P=0.047), owing to more frequent bleeding (7.2% vs.1.8%). At 45 days, the PDL rate at TEE was higher with Watchman than Amulet (27.5% vs. 13.7%, p=0.020), albeit none was major (i.e. > 5 mm), whereas DRT was detected in 1 (0.9%) patient with Amulet and 3 (3.0%) patients with Watchman at CCTA and in 2 (2.1%) and 5 (5.5%) patients at TEE, respectively. Clinical outcomes at 45 days did not differ between the groups. Conclusions: Amulet was not associated with lower rate of the composite of crossover or residual LAA patency compared with Watchman at 45-day CCTA. Amulet, was however associated with lower PDL rates at TEE, higher procedural complications and similar clinical outcomes at 45 days compared with Watchman. The clinical relevance of CCTA-detected LAA patency requires further investigation. Clinical Trial Registration: URL https://clinicaltrials.gov Unique Identifier NCT03399851.

Comparison between Amulet and Watchman left atrial appendage closure devices: A real-world, single center experience

Background

Data reporting a head-to-head comparison between Amulet and Watchman devices are scarce. The aim of this study was to compare the Watchman™ versus Amulet™ left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) devices in a consecutive, industry-independent registry.

Methods

Patients who underwent LAAC using Watchman or Amulet devices from January 2014 to December 2019 at the University Heart Center Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany were included in the present analysis. Primary endpoints included periprocedural complications (in-hospital death, pericardial tamponade, device embolization, stroke, major bleeding and vascular access complications), and complications during long-term follow-up (ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, thromboembolism, device thrombus, bleeding and death).

Results

After matching the patients for age (±5 years), gender, CHA2DS2Vasc score (±1) and HASBLED score (±1), each of the Watchman and the Amulet groups included 113 patients. Patients in the Amulet group had significantly more periprocedural complications (2.7% vs 10.6%, p = 0.029; respectively) and more major bleeding complications (0% vs 5.3%, p = 0.029; respectively). During long-term follow-up, the rate of events was comparable between the Watchman and Amulet groups (18.3% versus 20.8%, p = 0.729; respectively).

Conclusion

Amulet LAAC device was associated with increased periprocedural complications as compared to Watchman LAAC device. On long-term follow-up, both devices showed comparable efficacy and safety.

Clinical follow-up of left atrial appendage occlusion in patients with atrial fibrillation ineligible of oral anticoagulation treatment-a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The recommended stroke prevention for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and increased risk of ischemic stroke is oral anticoagulation (OAC). Parts of the patient population are not eligible due to contraindication, and percutaneous left atrial occlusion (LAAO) can then be a preventive treatment option. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to estimate the long-term clinical effectiveness of LAAO as stroke prevention in patients with AF, increased risk of ischemic stroke, and contraindication to OAC.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis, using Poisson random effect models, to estimate the incidence rate (events per 100 patient-years) of ischemic stroke, transient ischemic attack, major bleeding, and all-cause death after LAAO treatment. We also calculated the risk reduction of ischemic stroke with LAAO compared with no stroke prevention estimated through a predicted risk in an untreated population (5.5 per 100 patient-years).

RESULTS

We included 29 observational studies in our meta-analysis, including 7 951 individuals and 12 211 patient-years. The mean CHA2DS2-VASc score among the patients in the included studies is 4.32. The pooled incidence rate of ischemic stroke is 1.38 per 100 patient-years (95% CI 1.08; 1.77). According to a meta-regression model, the estimated incidence rate of ischemic stroke at CHA2DS2-VASc 4 is 1.39 per 100 patient-years. This implies a risk reduction of 74.7% with LAAO compared to predicated risk with no stroke prevention.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that LAAO is effective as stroke prevention for patients with AF, increased risk of stroke, and contraindication to oral anticoagulation.

One year outcome and analysis of peri-device leak of left atrial appendage occlusion devices

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of peri-device leak (PDL) of left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) devices has been previously reported. However, there have been only few data that compared different existing devices. The aim of this study was to assess the incidence of PDL with both devices WATCHMAN®, Boston Scientific and AMPLATZER Amulet®, Abbott Laboratories and to evaluate the clinical outcome at 12 months.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent LAAO between January 2018 and 2020 were randomly assigned to either WATCHMAN or AMPLATZER Amulet implantation based on a systematic 2-week alternation between both devices. LAA measurements were assessed using cardiac computed tomography angiography (CCTA) prior to and transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) during the procedure. At 8 weeks post-LAAO, patients underwent TEE and/or CCTA to identify the presence of PDL and/or device-related complications. Patients were then followed for 12 months to identify major adverse cardiovascular/embolic events.

RESULTS

The cohort consisted of 51 patients (25 WATCHMAN, 26 AMPLATZER Amulet; mean age 76 ± 7 years; male gender 76%). Both groups were identically matched for demographics, comorbidities, and indication for LAAO. There were 19 patients who had PDL (13 WATCHMAN vs. 6 AMPLATZER Amulet, P-value = 0.033). Of them, 8 (15%) patients had significant PDL (7 WATCHMAN vs. 1 AMPLATZER Amulet, P-value = 0.018). On CCTA, the landing zone maximal diameter of the AMPLATZER Amulet device had the strongest correlation with the final deployed device size (Spearman's rho 0.92, P-value < 0.0001). In the multivariate analysis, male gender and device type were independent predictors of any PDL (P-values 0.016 and 0.031, respectively). On a mean follow-up of 12 months, the total number of events was more prevalent in the WATCHMAN group (P-value 0.008), but the incidence of cardio-embolic events reached borderline significance (16% vs. 0%, P-value = 0.051).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients who underwent LAAO, almost 15% had significant PDL with the majority belonging to the WATCHMAN group. Still, larger studies are warranted to evaluate its effectiveness in stroke prevention.

Design and Rationale of the Swiss-Apero Randomized Clinical Trial: Comparison of Amplatzer Amulet vs Watchman Device in Patients Undergoing Left Atrial Appendage Closure

Residual or newly acquired leaks are routinely appraised after left atrial appendage closure (LAAC). The Watchman and the Amulet are the two most frequently used devices for LAAC but no randomized study has so far assessed their comparative leak rates after intervention. The "Comparison of Amplatzer Amulet vs Watchman devices in patients undergoing left atrial appendage closure" (Swiss-Apero, clinicaltrial.gov NCT03399851) is an academic-sponsored multicenter, randomized clinical trial comparing Amulet versus Watchman/FLX devices among patients undergoing a clinically indicated LAAC. The study is designed to assess the superiority of Amulet vs. Watchman/FLX in terms of leaks detected by cardiac computed tomography angiography (CCTA) at 45 days (primary endpoint) and 13 months (secondary endpoint) after intervention by an imaging Core Laboratory. The Swiss-Apero study is the first randomized clinical trial comparing Amulet and Watchman/FLX with respect to the prevalence of post-procedural leak as assessed with CCTA.

The Use of Novel Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants Following Closure of the Left Atrial Appendage: Preliminary Results of Clinical Follow-Up

Objective

The aim of this study was to investigate the safety and efficacy of using novel non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) for anticoagulation following left atrial appendage closure (LAAC).

Methods

A total of 70 patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) were enrolled in this study. All patients underwent successful LAAC between November 2018 and September 2019 in the Department of Cardiology of the First Affiliated Hospital of the University of Science and Technology of China. All patients subsequently completed a 45-day postoperative follow-up period. Patients were grouped according to the postoperative anticoagulation regimen they received: there were 40 patients in the NOACs group and 30 patients in the warfarin group. Baseline clinical data, intraoperative data, and short-term postoperative follow-up data were collected and the two groups were compared.

Results

The intraoperative results showed no statistical difference between the two groups in respect of the occlusion rate, the compression ratio of the occluder, the volume of pericardial effusion, or the incidence of the following: residual shunts, device-related thromboses (DRT), stroke, and pericardial effusion (P > 0.05 in all cases). The residual shunt volume in the NOACs group was significantly smaller than that in the warfarin group (P = 0.04). During the 45-day postoperative follow-up period, there was no statistical difference between the two groups in respect of the residual shunt volume, or the incidence of DRT, ischemic stroke and cerebral hemorrhage (P > 0.05 in all cases). Compared with the warfarin group, the residual shunt volume was significantly reduced in the NOACs group (P = 0.03). The incidence of minor hemorrhage and the total hemorrhage incidence in the NOACs group were significantly lower than those in the warfarin group (5% vs 30%, P = 0.004, and 5% vs 33.3%, P = 0.002, respectively).

Conclusion

In this study, the use of NOACs for postoperative anticoagulation therapy following LAAC did not increase the risk of embolization or hemorrhage during the short-term follow-up period.

Long-Term Safety and Efficacy of Percutaneous Left Atrial Appendage Closure with the LAmbre Device

Background

Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) using the LAmbre device has been associated with prevention of stroke in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF). Here, we interrogated the long-term safety and efficacy of using the LAmbre device in percutaneous LAAC.

Methods

We analyzed 56 records of patients with nonvalvular AF undergoing LAAC procedures with the LAmbre device. We collected and analyzed the data to define the safety and efficacy of the LAmbre device implantation.

Result

The LAAC was successfully occluded in the 56 patients. Our data showed no serious residual leak or pericardial effusion occurred during the perioperative period. At a mean follow-up of 37.8 ± 23.5 months, there were 7.1%, 3.6%, and 3.6% rates of death, stroke, and device-related thrombus, respectively. There were no cases of severe residual leak or systemic embolism.

Conclusion

Taken together, we demonstrate that execution of LAAC with the LAmbre device has high procedural success and prevents AF-related stroke. However, further large-scale trials might be required to confirm our findings.

Incidence, risk factors, and clinical impact of peridevice leak following left atrial appendage closure with the LAmbre device-Data from a prospective multicenter clinical study

BACKGROUND

In the present study, we sought to explore the incidence, risk factors, and clinical impact of peridevice leaks (PDLs), following LAmbre-assisted left atrial appendage closure (LAAC).

METHODS

We performed transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) on patients participating in the LAmbre multicenter study, at Day 1 postimplantation, then at 3 and 12 months to assess PDL, device-related thrombus, left atrial appendage (LAA) thrombus, and left atrial thrombus. Clinical events were recorded during follow-up.

RESULT

A total of 152 patients with atrial fibrillation successfully completed LAAC. At 3 months follow-up, 123 patients underwent TEE, with 21 (17%) of them presenting PDL. Among the 121 patients who underwent TEE at 12 months follow-up, 19 (15.7%) presented PDL. Patients with PDL exhibited larger LAA orifice diameters and larger device sizes compared to those in the no leak group. In addition, we found no significant differences in thromboembolic events between patients in the PDL and no leak groups.

CONCLUSION

LAmbre-assisted LAA closure resulted in a relatively low PDL occurrence, and its rate decreased over time. In addition, PDL was more prominent in patients with larger LAA orifice diameter and larger device size. However, the condition was not associated with an increased risk for thromboembolic events.

Comparative Safety and Efficacy of Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion with the Watchman Device and Amplatzer Cardiac Plug: Results of the Russian National Registry

PURPOSE

This multicenter, prospective registry evaluated the comparative safety and efficacy of left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) using the Watchman device (WD) and the Amplatzer Cardiac Plug (ACP) in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) in real-world clinical practice in Russia.

METHODS

The study included data from 200 consecutive NVAF patients (66.8 ± 7.8 years, 44.5% female, median CHA2DS2VASc 4, median HAS-BLED 3) who had undergone LAAO implantation using WD (n = 108) or ACP (n = 92) from September 2015 to December 2017 in 5 medical centers in Russia. The primary safety endpoint was the procedure-related major adverse events, and the primary efficacy endpoint was the composite of thromboembolic events, device thrombosis, hemorrhagic events, and unexplained death during the 12-month follow-up.

RESULTS

Successful LAAO was performed in all 92 (100%) patients with ACP and 105 (97.2%) with WD (p = 0.053). At 12 months, primary safety endpoint occurred in 6.5% of patients in the ACP group with no events in the WD group (6.5% vs. 0%, p = 0.008). During the 12-month follow-up, the primary efficacy endpoint has occurred in 8.3% of patients in the WD group (n = 9) and 1.1% of patients in the ACP group (n = 1) (p = 0.016).

CONCLUSIONS

In this multicenter prospective registry, LAA closure with the WD was associated with significantly higher thromboembolic events rate in NVAF patients. Patients, receiving the ACP, had more procedure-related major adverse events. However, further multicenter studies are necessary to evaluate these findings.

Noninvasive ventilation during left atrial appendage closure under sedation: Preliminary experience with the Janus Mask

Background:

Percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) is indicated in subjects with atrial fibrillation who cannot receive oral anticoagulants. This procedure requires transesophageal echocardiography guidance and is usually performed under general anesthesia. The Janus Mask is a new device designed to allow upper endoscopic procedures during noninvasive ventilation (NIV).

Aims:

This study aims to assess the possibility of performing LAAO under sedation and NIV.

Setting:

Cardiac electrophysiology laboratory.

Design:

Case–control study.

Materials and Methods:

Data from 11 subjects undergoing LAAO under sedation and NIV with the Janus Mask were retrospectively collected. Procedure duration, outcomes, and physicians' satisfaction were compared with those of 11 subjects who underwent LAAO under general anesthesia in the same period.

Statistical Analysis:

Univariate analysis and analysis of variance for between-groups comparison.

Results:

The 11 subjects treated with sedation experienced a good outcome, with a high degree of satisfaction from the medical team. An increase in arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide in the Janus group (45 [43–62] mmHg vs. 33 [30–35] mmHg in the general anesthesia group, P < 0.001) led to a transient pH decrease 45 min after the beginning of the procedure (7.30 [7.18–7.36] vs. 7.40 [7.39–7.46], P = 0.014). No differences in arterial partial pressure of oxygen, FiO₂, and hemodynamic parameters were observed. The subjects' conditions at discharge from the recovery room were comparable. No difference in procedure duration was registered.

Conclusions:

LAAO procedure under sedation and NIV through the Janus Mask is safe and feasible. This strategy might represent a valuable alternative to manage such a compromised and fragile population.

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.

Device-Related Thrombosis After Percutaneous Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion for Atrial Fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter left atrial appendage (LAA) occlusion is an alternative strategy for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF).

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to determine the incidence, predictors, and prognosis of thrombus formation on devices in patients with AF who were treated with LAA closure.

METHODS

The study retrospectively analyzed data from patients treated with 2 LAA closure devices seen in 8 centers in France from February 2012 to January 2017.

RESULTS

A total of 469 consecutive patients with AF underwent LAA closure (272 Watchman devices [Atritech, Boston Scientific, Natick, Massachusetts] and 197 Amplatzer devices [St. Jude Medical, Minneapolis, Minnesota]). Mean follow-up was 13 ± 13 months, during which 339 (72.3%) patients underwent LAA imaging at least once. There were 98 major adverse events (26 thrombi on devices, 19 ischemic strokes, 2 transient ischemic attacks, 18 major hemorrhages, 33 deaths) recorded in 89 patients. The incidence of device-related thrombus in patients with LAA imaging was 7.2% per year. Older age (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.07 per 1-year increase; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.01 to 1.14; p = 0.02) and history of stroke (HR: 3.68; 95% CI: 1.17 to 11.62; p = 0.03) were predictors of thrombus formation on the devices, whereas dual antiplatelet therapy (HR: 0.10; 95% CI: 0.01 to 0.76; p = 0.03) and oral anticoagulation at discharge (HR: 0.26; 95% CI: 0.09 to 0.77; p = 0.02) were protective factors. Thrombus on the device (HR: 4.39; 95% CI: 1.05 to 18.43; p = 0.04) and vascular disease (HR: 5.03; 95% CI: 1.39 to 18.23; p = 0.01) were independent predictors of ischemic strokes and transient ischemic attacks during follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Thrombus formation on the device is not uncommon in patients with AF who are treated by LAA closure. Such events are strongly associated with a higher risk of ischemic stroke during follow-up. (REgistry on Real-Life EXperience With Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion [RELEXAO]; NCT03279406).

Percutaneous devices for left atrial appendage occlusion: A contemporary review

Patient with atrial fibrillation (AF) are at risk of developing stroke with the left atrial appendage (LAA) being the most common site for thrombus formation. If left untreated, AF is associated with 4 to 5 folds increase in the risk of ischemic stroke in all age groups. About 5% to 15% of AF patients have atrial thrombi on transesophageal echocardiography, and 91% of those thrombi are located in the LAA in patient with nonrheumatic AF. Although oral anticoagulants are the gold-standard treatment for stroke prevention in patients with non-valvular AF, some patients are at high risk of bleeding and deemed not candidates for anticoagulation. Therefore, LAA occlusion (LAAO) has emerged as alternative approach for stroke prevention in those patients. Surgical LAAO is associated with high rate of unsuccessful closure and recommended only in patients with AF and undergoing cardiac surgery. Percutaneous LAAO uses transvenous access with trans-septal puncture and was first tested using the PLAATO device. Watchman is the most common and only Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved device for LAAO. LAAO using Watchman device is non-inferior to warfarin therapy in preventing ischemic stroke/systemic thromboembolism. However, it is associated with lower rates of hemorrhagic stroke, bleeding and death. Amplatzer is another successful LAAO device that has CE mark and is waiting for FDA approval. Optimal antithrombotic therapy post LAAO is still under debate and highly patient-specific. The aim of this paper is to systematically review the current literature to evaluate the efficacy and safety of different LAAO devices.

Real-world experience comparing two common left atrial appendage closure devices

Background

The interventional left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) is a guideline-conform alternative to oral anticoagulation (OAC) in non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients with OAC ineligibility. It was aimed to directly compare two contemporary devices in a real-world patient population.

Methods

LAAC was conducted in two centres between 2010 and 2014 as well as between 2014 and 2017, respectively, in a standard fashion based on the specific manufacturer’s recommendations. Baseline characteristics, procedural data and event rates during intra-hospital and 6 months follow-up were registered in a retrospective approach, and analysed in device-related groups.

Results

A total of 189 patients presented for LAAC device implantation. Baseline characteristics were mostly evenly distributed. In 148 patients, a Watchman™ device (Boston Scientific, Natick, MA, USA) was successfully implanted, an Amplatzer™ Amulet™ (St. Jude Medical, St. Paul, MN, USA) in 34 patients (96.1 and 97.1%, respectively; p = 1.00). Major access site bleedings were more frequent in the Amplatzer™ Amulet™ group (8.9 versus 1.4%; p = 0.046). No intra-hospital thromboembolic event was present. During 6 months follow-up, peri-device leaks > 5 mm and thromboembolic events were uncommon (each p = n.s.).

Conclusions

While procedural success was equally high with both contemporary devices, complications during follow-up were rare, and evenly distributed.

Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion: What Are the Options and Where is the Evidence?

Left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) has emerged as an effective site-directed therapy in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF) for stroke prevention, who are ineligible for long-term oral anticoagulation. The objective of this study was to assess the safety, efficacy, and availability of LAAO devices by reviewing the literature and to review the development and effectiveness of LAAO by the transcatheter approach with plugging devices such as WATCHMAN™ (Boston Scientific, Natick, MA, USA); AMPLATZER™ Cardiac Plug and AMPLATZER™ Amulet™ (Abbott Laboratories, Chicago, IL, USA); and the LARIAT^® Suture Delivery Device (SentreHEART, Redwood City, CA, USA), which features an entirely unique hybrid (endocardial and epicardial) approach in closing the left atrial appendage (LAA). The conducted literature review ultimately revealed a substantial body of literature supporting the safety and efficacy of various LAAO strategies, including endocardial, epicardial, and hybrid approaches, in AF patients who are not eligible for long-term oral anticoagulant use. Specifically, the most attractive population suitable for LAA closure appears to be patients at high risk for ischemic stroke with a longer life expectancy but a moderate-to-high bleeding risk with long-term oral anticoagulation. The benefit of LAA closure in reducing the incidence of stroke in patients with nonvalvular AF has been evolving gradually, and we are confident that this new field of percutaneous LAA closure will continue to emerge as a game-changer in the treatment of AF.

Left atrial appendage occlusion: 2016 in review

A significant body of data has emerged in the area of Percutaneous Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion (LAAO). In this article, we present an overview of the most notable publications along with a review of the most important publications on LAAO in 2016. We also present important historical data such as landmark clinical studies, review of most utilized occlusion devices, and important clinical studies that are underway.