Procedural success and intra-hospital outcome related to left atrial appendage morphology in patients that receive an interventional left atrial appendage 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.

Catheter ablation in combined procedures is associated with residual leaks

Objectives

To compare patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) with catheter ablation (CA) and those without CA.

Background

The CA of AF may cause ridge edema, which may affect the safety of LAAC.

Methods

Patients with AF (N = 98) who underwent LAAC (combined CA + LAAC procedure group; N = 51) or alone (LAAC group; N = 47) received pre-procedural, intra-procedural, and 6 week post-procedural transesophageal echocardiography (TEE). The depth and ostial diameter of LAA, device compression, residual leak, and ridge thickness were evaluated in the patients who had undergone combined and alone procedures, as well as images of LAA and primary clinical characteristics.

Results

A residual leak was identified in 27 patients at 6 weeks after implantation by TEE (19 in the combined procedures group and eight in the alone group; p = 0.04). The combined procedure group had a significantly higher rate of a new residual leak than the alone group (25.5 vs. 8.5%; p = 0.03). Meanwhile, compared with at the time of implant, a smaller amount of device compression ratio was significant after 6 weeks (22.44 ± 3.90 vs. 19.59 ± 5.39; p = 0.03). There was no significant difference between both groups in all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and TIA/stroke/system embolism.

Conclusion

The combined procedures of CA and LAAC for AF are feasible and safe; however, during the follow-up period, we found that the resolution of ridge edema caused by CA might cause an increased residual leak and a smaller device compression ratio.

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.

Relation of left atrial appendage closure devices to topographic neighboring structures using standardized imaging by cardiac computed tomography angiography

Background

Although left atrial appendage (LAA) anatomy and topographic relations are well understood, little is known about the impairment of neighboring structures (NBS) by an implanted left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) device. This prospective longitudinal observational study for the first time describes distances of implanted LAA closure (LAAC) devices to NBS using a standardized imaging protocol of cardiac computed tomography angiography (cCTA).

Hypothesis

cCTA imaging is an eligible tool for post‐implantation evaluation of LAAC devices and their relation to neighboring structures.

Methods

cCTA data sets of consecutive patients 6 months after successful LAAC were acquired on a third generation dual‐source CT system and reconstructed with a slice thickness of 0.5 mm. The standardized multi‐planar reconstruction LAA occluder view for post‐implantation evaluation (LOVE) algorithm was used to measure the distances to NBS in relation to LAA morphology and implanted LAAC devices.

Results

A total of 48 patients (median age 80 years, 25% female) were included. Left upper pulmonary vein and circumflex artery were generally closest to occlusion devices (median 2.9 and 2.8 mm, respectively). AMPLATZER AMULET devices were closer to the mitral valve annulus than WATCHMAN devices (6.6 mm (inter quartile range [IQR] 4.9‐8.6) vs 10.9 mm (IQR 7.4‐14.0), P = 0.001). Distances to the left upper pulmonary vein were affected by LAA morphology, with cauliflower type having the closest proximity (1.7 mm [IQR 1.0‐3.4], P = 0.048).

Conclusion

A standardized cCTA imaging protocol is an eligible tool to accurately measure distances to NBS. Left upper pulmonary vein and circumflex artery are closest to LAAC devices and could thus be most prone to impairment.

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.

Procedural success and intra-hospital outcome related to left atrial appendage morphology in patients that receive an interventional left atrial appendage closure

BACKGROUND

The interventional left atrial appendage (LAA) closure represents an emerging alternative to oral anticoagulation for stroke prevention in certain atrial fibrillation patients. Preliminary results have suggested high procedural success rates and fewer peri-interventional complications; however, there persists an insufficient understanding of the role of many underlying confounding variables (e.g., anatomical characteristics).

HYPOTHESIS

It was investigated whether varying LAA morphologies influence procedural success as well as in-hospital outcome.

METHODS

Sixty-seven patients ineligible for long-term oral anticoagulation were included in this single-center, prospective, observational registry spanning from the years 2014 to 2016. Interventions were performed with the Watchman occluder (Boston Scientific, Natick, MA) or the Amplatzer Amulet (St. Jude Medical, St. Paul, MN), at the operator's discretion. Results derived from the data describing procedural success, fluoroscopy, and peri-interventional safety events were classified according to the presenting LAA morphology (cauliflower, cactus, windsock, and chicken wing).

RESULTS

Rates of successful implantation were high across all groups (≥98%; P = 0.326). Surrogate parameters underlining procedural complexity like median total duration (P = 0.415), median fluoroscopy time (P = 0.459), median dose area product (P = 0.698), and the median amount of contrast agent (P = 0.076) demonstrated similar results across all groups. Likewise, the periprocedural complication rate was not significantly different and was mainly restricted to minor bleeding events.

CONCLUSIONS

Irrespective of the varying morphological presentation of the LAA, the procedural success rates, interventional characteristics, and safety events did not significantly differ among patients receiving an interventional LAA closure.