Amplatzer left atrial appendage closure: Single versus combined procedures

Comparison of Adverse Events between Isolated Left Atrial Appendage Closure and Combined Catheter Ablation

(1) Background: This study aimed to investigate the effect of an additional catheter ablation (CA) procedure on the risk of post-procedure adverse events during CA combined with left atrial appendage closure (LAAC). (2) Methods: From July 2017 to February 2022, data from 361 patients with atrial fibrillation who underwent LAAC at our center were analyzed retrospectively. The adverse events were compared between CA + LAAC and LAAC-only groups. (3) Results: The incidence of device-related thrombus (DRT) and embolic events was significantly lower in the CA + LAAC group than in the LAAC-only group (p = 0.01 and 0.04, respectively). A logistic regression analysis revealed that the combined procedure served as a protective factor for DRT (OR = 0.09; 95% confidence interval: 0.01-0.89; p = 0.04). Based on a Cox regression analysis, the risk of embolism marginally increased in patients aged ≥65 years (HR = 7.49, 95% CI: 0.85-66.22 p = 0.07), whereas the combined procedure was found to be a protective factor (HR = 0.25, 95% CI: 0.07-0.87 p = 0.03). Further subgroup and interaction analyses revealed similar results. (4) Conclusions: The combined procedure may be associated with a lower rate of post-procedure DRT and embolization without a higher occurrence of other adverse events after LAAC. A risk-score-based prediction model was conducted, showing a good prediction performance.

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.

Experience of Combined Procedure during Percutaneous LAA Closure

Introduction: Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) is an alternative to oral anticoagulants (OAC) in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) and contraindication to long-term OAC. Combined strategy with percutaneous LAAC at the same time of other cardiac structural or electrophysiological procedures has emerged as an alternative to a staged strategy. Aim: To describe our experience with combined LAAC procedures using Watchman™ devices. Methods: All patients with combined LAAC procedures using Watchman™ (WN) devices performed from 2016 to 2021 were included. The primary safety endpoint was a composite of periprocedural complications and adverse events during the follow-up. The primary efficacy endpoint included strokes, systemic embolisms, major bleeding and cardiovascular death. Results: From 2016, among 160 patients who underwent LAAC using WN devices, 19 underwent a combined strategy: 7 transcatheter edge-to-edge mitral valve repair (TEMVR) (37%), 6 typical atrial flutter ablation (31%), 2 leadless pacemaker (LP) implantation (10%) and 4 AF ablation (22%). The WN device was successfully implanted in 98% and 100% of cases for single and combined LAAC procedures, respectively (p = 0.63). Median follow-up was 13 months (IQR 25/75 3/24). Device-related complications occurred in 6 out of 141 patients (4%) who underwent single LAAC and in no (0/19) patient in the combined LAAC procedure (p = ns). The procedural-related complications did not differ significantly between groups (5% vs. 10%, respectively, in the single and combined group, p = 0.1). Conclusion: Combined procedure using the Watchman™ devices and one other structural or electrophysiological procedure appears safe and effective. Larger series are needed to confirm these results.