Early results of first versus second generation Amplatzer occluders for left atrial appendage closure in patients with atrial fibrillation

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.

Single antiplatelet therapy after left atrial appendage closure in patients with AF: safety and effectiveness

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

The optimal antithrombotic strategy following left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) is poorly defined in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. We assessed the safety and effectiveness of a single antiplatelet treatment (SAPT) strategy after LAAC in a population at high risk of ischemic and bleeding events.

METHODS

This single-center, observational, prospective study included a consecutive cohort of patients who underwent LAAC using the LAmbre device (Lifetech Scientific, China) and who were discharged with SAPT. The primary outcome was a composite of stroke, systemic embolism, and device-related thrombosis during follow-up. Secondary endpoints were cardiovascular mortality and major bleeding events (BARC ≥3a). Clinical follow-up was performed at 1, 6, and 12 months and subsequently on an annual basis. Transesophageal echocardiography was performed at 1 and 12 months of follow-up.

RESULTS

The study comprised 74 patients. The median age was 77 [72-83] years and 43% were women. The cohort exhibited a high prevalence of comorbidities and cardiovascular risk factors. The median CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED scores were 4 [3-6] and 4 [4-5], respectively. The median length of follow-up was 2.5 years (188 patients-year). During follow-up, device-related thrombosis occurred in 3 patients (4%). Ischemic stroke occurred in 1 patient (1.3%, rate 0.5%/y), representing a 90.9% relative risk reduction compared with the risk predicted by CHA2DS2-VASc. Major bleeding events occurred in 12 patients (16%, 6.4%/y), with a relative risk reduction of 26.4% of that predicted by HAS-BLED. Cardiovascular-related mortality was observed in 2 patients (2.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

SAPT appears to be a safe and effective treatment following LAAC in patients at high ischemic and hemorrhagic risk. Further studies are needed to confirm our findings.

The CT derived angle between the transseptal puncture site and the left atrial appendage as a predictor for complex interventional occlusion procedures

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the role of the CT-derived angle between the intra-atrial septum (IAS) and the left atrial appendage (LAA) on procedural complexity and clinical outcomes in left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) procedures.

BACKGROUND

Given the broad variations in anatomy, LAAO remains one of the most challenging interventional procedures in structural heart disease. In recent years, preprocedural cardiac tomography (CT) has evolved as a valuable tool; however, prediction of procedural complexity remains cumbersome.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 47 patients that underwent LAAO at our center in whom pre-procedural cardiac CT-scans were available. Among other baseline parameters, we measured the angle between the LAA ostium and the preferred transseptal puncture site at the IAS. We compared patients with an angle above and below the median regarding procedural characteristics and procedural outcome.

RESULTS

The median angle between the LAA and the IAS was 127.3° (IQR: 120.9-141.3). LAAO took longer in patients with a measured angle below the median (55.0 ± 22.7 min vs. 41.3 ± 17.5 min; p = .04), resulting in longer radiation times (13.0 ± 5.3 min vs. 9.8 ± 5.7 min; p = .04) and more contrast use (61.1 ± 47.5 mL vs. 33.6 ± 24.7 mL; p = .05). Moreover, the necessity for a sheath exchange was significantly higher (30.4% vs. 4.2%, p = .02) and device repositioning or device resizing trended to be more frequent (26.1% vs. 8.3%; p = .1 and 21.7% vs. 8.3%; p = .2). There were no differences in procedural outcome, device-position and peri-device leak (PDL).

CONCLUSIONS

The angle between the transseptal puncture site and the LAA ostium may serve as a predictor for more demanding LAAO interventions. In our study a steeper angle led to a prolonged procedure resulting in higher doses of contrast and radiation, but was not associated with a worse procedural outcome.

Impact of Preprocedural Computed Tomography on Left Atrial Appendage Closure Success: A Swiss-Apero Trial Subanalysis

BACKGROUND

The benefit related to the use of preprocedural computed tomography angiography (CCTA) on top of periprocedural echocardiography to plan percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) procedures is still unclear.

OBJECTIVES

The authors sought to evaluate the impact of preprocedural CCTA on LAAC procedural success.

METHODS

In the investigator-initiated SWISS-APERO (Comparison of Amplatzer Amulet and Watchman Device in Patients Undergoing Left Atrial Appendage Closure) trial, patients undergoing echocardiography-guided LAAC were randomly assigned to receive the Amulet (Abbott) or Watchman 2.5/FLX (Boston Scientific) device across 8 European centers. According to the study protocol ongoing at the time of the procedure, the first operators had (CCTA unblinded group) or did not have (CCTA blinded group) access to preprocedural CCTA images. In this post hoc analysis, we compared blinded vs unblinded procedures in terms of procedural success defined as complete left atrial appendage occlusion as evaluated at the end of LAAC (short-term) or at the 45-day follow-up (long-term) without procedural-related complications.

RESULTS

Among 219 LAACs preceded by CCTA, 92 (42.1%) and 127 (57.9%) were assigned to the CCTA unblinded and blinded group, respectively. After adjusting for confounders, operator unblinding to preprocedural CCTA remained associated with a higher rate of short-term procedural success (93.5% vs 81.1%; P = 0.009; adjusted OR: 2.76; 95% CI: 1.05-7.29; P = 0.040) and long-term procedural success (83.7% vs 72.4%; P = 0.050; adjusted OR: 2.12; 95% CI: 1.03-4.35; P = 0.041).

CONCLUSIONS

In a prospective multicenter cohort of clinically indicated echocardiography-guided LAACs, unblinding of the first operators to preprocedural CCTA images was independently associated with a higher rate of both short- and long-term procedural success. Further studies are needed to better evaluate the impact of preprocedural CCTA on clinical outcomes.

Follow Up imaging After Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion-Something or Nothing and for How Long?

Routine postprocedural imaging with transesophageal echocardiography or cardiac computed tomography angiography is the most commonly used imaging modality for follow-up surveillance usually performed 1 to 6 months after the procedure. Imaging enables recognition of well-suited and sealed devices in the left atrial appendage as well as of potential harmful complications such as peri-device leaks, device-related thrombus, and device embolization, which may lead to further surveillance observation with recurrent imaging, reinitiation of oral anticoagulants, or additional interventional procedures.

Follow Up imaging After Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion-Something or Nothing and for How Long?

Routine postprocedural imaging with transesophageal echocardiography or cardiac computed tomography angiography is the most commonly used imaging modality for follow-up surveillance usually performed 1 to 6 months after the procedure. Imaging enables recognition of well-suited and sealed devices in the left atrial appendage as well as of potential harmful complications such as peri-device leaks, device-related thrombus, and device embolization, which may lead to further surveillance observation with recurrent imaging, reinitiation of oral anticoagulants, or additional interventional procedures.

Incidence, persistence, and clinical relevance of iatrogenic atrial septal defects after percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the rate and clinical impact of a persisting iatrogenic atrial septal defect (iASD) after percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO).

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous LAAO is an alternative to oral anticoagulation (OAC) for the prevention of ischemic stroke and systemic embolism in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Data regarding incidence and persistence of iASD after LAAO procedures and its clinical relevance is scarce.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 144 patients that underwent LAAO at our center between 2009 and 2020 who had at least one follow-up including transesophageal echocardiography (TEE). Baseline clinical, procedural data and echocardiographic characteristics in patients with and without evidence of an iASD were compared. We furthermore determined the rate of iASD persistence over time and evaluated outcomes of patients with and without spontaneous iASD closure.

RESULTS

After a median of 92 days (IQR 75-108 days) after LAAO, 50 patients (50/144, 34.7%) showed evidence of an iASD. Patients with iASD had higher CHADS-VASc-scores (4.9±1.5 vs 4.2±1.2, p = 0.03), larger left atrial volumes (80.5±30.5 ml vs 67.1±19.7 ml, p = 0.01) and were more likely to have relevant mitral regurgitation (≥° II) (46.0% vs 12.3%, p = 0.001). LAAO procedures took longer (50.1±24.3 vs 41.1±17.8 min, p = 0.06) in patients with a persisting iASD. Furthermore, larger device sizes were implanted (24.3±3.4 mm vs 22.1±2.8 mm, p = 0.03). The presence of an iASD had no impact on RV dysfunction, thromboembolism or mortality. Spontaneous closure of an iASD was documented in 52.0% (26/50). Hereby, similar risk factors were identified for the persistence of an iASD in follow-up.

Feasibility and safety of left atrial appendage occlusion guided by procedural fluoroscopy only: A pilot study

BACKGROUND

Left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) is usually performed via the guidance of procedural transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) companied by general anesthesia (GA).

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the feasibility and safety of LAAO guided by procedural fluoroscopy only.

METHODS

The patients eligible for LAAO were enrolled into the current study and received implantation of either Watchman device or LAmbre device. The procedure was carried out with procedural fluoroscopy only and no companied GA; the position, shape, and leakage of the device were assessed by contrast angiography. TEE was performed after 3-month follow-up to evaluate the thrombosis, and leakage of device.

RESULTS

Ninety-seven patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) with either Watchman device (n = 49) or LAmbre device (n = 48) were consecutively enrolled. Watchman device group was of lower CHA₂ DS₂ -VASc and HAS-BLED scores compared with LAmbre device groups (p < .05); the two groups had similar distributions of other baseline characteristics (p > .05), including procedural success rate (98.0% vs. 97.9%), mean procedure time, mean fluoroscopy time, total radiation dose, contrast medium dose, percentage of peri-device leakage. Pericardial effusions requiring intervention occurred in two of the Watchman group. TEE follow-up found no patient with residual leakage ≥5 mm at 3 months and no device related thrombosis (DRT). During the 22.0 ± 11.1 months follow-up, two patients experienced ischemic stroke.

CONCLUSIONS

LAAO with the procedural imaging of fluoroscopy only exhibited the promising results of efficacy and safety. A prospective randomized multicenter study would be required to verify the observations in this study.

Percutaneous Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion: An Emerging Option in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation at High Risk of Bleeding

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common cardiac arrhythmia with an estimated prevalence of 1% in the general population. It is associated with an increased risk of ischemic stroke, silent cerebral ischemia, and cognitive impairment. Due to the blood flow stasis and morphology, thrombus formation occurs mainly in the left atrial appendage (LAA), particularly in the setting of nonvalvular AF (NVAF). Previous studies have shown that >90% of emboli related to NVAF originate from the LAA, thus prevention of systemic cardioembolism is indicated. According to the current guidelines, anticoagulant therapy with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) or vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), represents the standard of care in AF patients, in order to prevent ischemic stroke and peripheral embolization. Although these drugs are widely used and DOACs have shown, compared to VKAs, non-inferiority for stroke prevention with significantly fewer bleeding complications, some issues remain a matter of debate, including contraindications, side effects, and adherence. An increasing number of patients, indeed, because of high bleeding risk or after experiencing life-threatening bleedings, must take anticoagulants with extreme caution if not contraindicated. While surgical closure or exclusion of LAA has been historically used in patients with AF with contradictory results, in the recent years, a novel procedure has emerged to prevent the cardioembolic stroke in these patients: The percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO). Different devices have been developed in recent years, though not all of them are approved in Europe and some are still under clinical investigation. Currently available devices have shown a significant decrease in bleeding risk while maintaining efficacy in preventing thromboembolism. The procedure can be performed percutaneously through the femoral vein access, under general anesthesia. A transseptal puncture is required to access left atrium and is guided by transesophageal echocardiography (TEE). Evidence from the current literature indicates that percutaneous LAAO represents a safe alternative for those patients with contraindications for long-term oral anticoagulation. This review summarizes scientific evidences regarding LAAO for stroke prevention including clinical indications and an adequate patient selection.

Atrial Fibrillation and Ischemic Stroke: A Clinical Review

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is an important risk factor for ischemic stroke resulting in a fivefold increased stroke risk and a twofold increased mortality. Our understanding of stroke mechanisms in AF has evolved since the concept of atrial cardiopathy was introduced as an underlying pathological change, with both AF and thromboembolism being common manifestations and outcomes. Despite the strong association with stroke, there is no evidence that screening for AF in asymptomatic patients improves clinical outcomes; however, there is strong evidence that patients with embolic stroke of undetermined source may require long-term monitoring to detect silent or paroxysmal AF. Stroke prevention in patients at risk, assessed by the CHA₂DS₂-VASc score, was traditionally achieved with warfarin; however, direct oral anticoagulants have solidified their role as safe and effective alternatives. Additionally, left atrial appendage exclusion has emerged as a viable option in patients intolerant of anticoagulation. When patients with AF have an acute stroke, the timing of initiation or resumption of anticoagulation for secondary stroke prevention has to be balanced against the risk of hemorrhagic conversion. Multiple randomized clinical trials are currently underway to determine the best timing for administration of anticoagulants following acute ischemic stroke.

Left Atrial Appendage Closure with a New Occluder Device: Efficacy, Safety and Mid-Term Performance

The LAmbreTM device is a novel system designed for left atrial appendage closure (LAAC). First registries showed a high rate of device implantation success. However, few mid-term results are available. We present our 1- and 12-month follow-up results for this device. This prospective, single-center registry included consecutive patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation who underwent LAAC with the LAmbreTM device. Transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) was performed at 1-month follow-up. In total, 55 patients were included. The population was elderly (75 ± 9.4 years), with a high proportion of comorbidities. The mean CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED scores were 4.6 ± 1.6 and 3.9 ± 1.0, respectively. Previous history of a major bleeding event was present in 37 patients (67.3%). Procedural success was achieved in 54 patients (98.2%). Device success was achieved in 100% of patients in whom device implantation was attempted (54 patients). Major in-hospital device-related complications included mortality of one patient (1.8%) and pericardial tamponade in two patients (3.6%); the incidence of stroke was 0%. No thrombus or significant leaks (≥5 mm) were observed on 1-month TEE. At 12 months, adverse events were overall death (1.8%), transient ischemic attack/ischemic stroke (1.8%), and major bleeding events (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 3a and 3c; 11%). In this high-risk population, the LAmbreTM device seems to be a safe and effective option for LAAC with a remarkable mid-term performance.

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.

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.

Why Follow-up Examinations After Left Atrial Appendage Closure Are Important: Detection of Complications During Follow-up and How to Deal with Them

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Device-related thrombus (DRT) formation and incomplete left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) are the two major complications that can occur after LAAC and can potentially limit the success of such a procedure. This review discusses the incidence, clinical and/or prognostic significance, detection methods, treatment options, and potential strategies to prevent these complications.

RECENT FINDINGS

It has recently been proven that the presence of a DRT represents an independent predictor for ischemic stroke after LAAC. Continued need for anticoagulation due to incomplete LAAC is clinically relevant to the patient. The appearances of a DRT or an incompletely closed LAA after a LAAC procedure are not rare complications. Due to the clinical and/or prognostic significance of these complications, it is important to detect them in a timely manner during follow-up by using the appropriate diagnostic imaging techniques. Since a DRT is associated with an increased risk of stroke, the therapy should be aggressive. In the case of incomplete LAA closure, an additional closure device may be used to complete occlusion and avoid lifelong anticoagulation therapy.

Preoperative Planning for Structural Heart Disease

Preoperative assessment with computed tomography (CT) is critical before transcatheter interventions for structural heart disease. CT provides information for device selection, device sizing, and vascular access approach. The interpreting radiologist must have knowledge of appropriate CT protocols, how and where to obtain the important measurements, and know additional imaging characteristics that are important to describe for optimal support of the interventionalist. CT is the modality of choice for pre-operative evaluation in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement and left atrial appendage occlusion, and is also useful before transcatheter mitral valve replacement, which is an ongoing area of research.

Short-Term Antiplatelet Versus Anticoagulant Therapy After Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare bleeding, thromboembolic, device-related thrombus (DRT), and all-cause mortality events between patients treated with short-term oral anticoagulation (OAC) and those treated with short-term antiplatelet therapy (APT) following left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO).

BACKGROUND

Short-term OAC is recommended for patients following LAAO. However, in practice many patients receive APT rather than OAC because of excessive bleeding risk. However, the safety and efficacy of APT compared with OAC have been debated.

METHODS

A search was conducted of databases for studies comparing OAC with APT following LAAO. The outcomes of interest were all-cause stroke, major bleeding, DRT, and all-cause mortality. Noncomparative studies were pooled into a single study to generate comparisons of the studies' outcomes. Effects measure were pooled using the random-effect model.

RESULTS

A total of 83 studies with 12,326 patients (APT, n = 7,900; OAC, n = 4,151) were included. Mean CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED scores were 4.1 ± 1.6 and 3.0 ± 1.3, respectively. There were no significance differences between the APT and OAC groups with regard to stroke (risk ratio [RR]: 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.54 to 1.98; p = 0.91; I2 = 31%), major bleeding (RR: 1.12; 95% CI: 0.68 to 1.84; p = 0.65; I2 = 53%), DRT (RR: 1.33; 95% CI: 0.74 to 2.39; p = 0.33; I2 = 36%), and all-cause mortality (RR: 1.29; 95% CI: 0.40 to 4.09; p = 0.18; I2 = 36%). These findings persisted in multiple secondary analyses: 1) excluding studies that reported no events; 2) including comparative studies only; 3) excluding patients who were treated with single APT; and 4) removing one study at a time to assess the effect of each study on the overall effect size. There was also no difference in the studies' endpoints among patients who received different LAAO devices.

CONCLUSIONS

In a meta-analysis of observational data, there were no differences in the occurrence of stroke, major bleeding DRT, and all-cause mortality in patients treated with short-term OAC or APT following LAAO.

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.

Risk stratification in patients undergoing interventional left atrial appendage occlusion-Prognostic impact of EuroSCORE II

Background

Interventional closure of the left atrial appendage (LAA) is an alternative option to stroke prophylaxis, particularly in multimorbid patients with a high risk of bleeding under oral anticoagulation. Due to the multiple comorbidities, the prognosis of patients is reduced, and the clinical benefit of the procedure is therefore questionable in the individual patient.

Hypothesis

The present study aims to identify independent preprocedural risk factors to improve risk stratification in these highly selected patients.

Methods

This study consecutively included 128 patients who received an interventional LAA occlusion with Amplatzer device (St Jude Medical, St Paul, Minnesota). The preinterventional risk assessment was performed with the logistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE) II. The primary endpoint was all‐cause mortality. Secondary endpoints were thromboembolic events and severe bleeding.

Results

During a follow‐up of 781 ± 498 days the primary endpoint (all‐cause mortality) was reached in 35 patients (27%). The only independent predictor of mid‐term mortality was a logistic EuroSCORE II > 2% (Hazard risk [HR] 4.55, confidence interval [CI] 1.599‐12.966, P = .005). In our study, 33 patients (26%) suffered from end‐stage renal disease which was not associated with increased mortality (P = .371), increased thromboembolic events (P = .475), or severe bleeding (P = .613).

Conclusions

In patients undergoing interventional LAA occlusion, preprocedural assessment of logistic EuroSCORE II provide independent prognostic information. This parameter might help to improve risk stratification in these highly selected patients. In contrast, terminal renal failure was not associated with a significantly worse outcome.

Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion in the Management of Stroke in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with a substantially higher risk of thromboembolism, particularly stroke events, resulting in significant morbidity and mortality. Oral anticoagulation (OAC), while effective in reducing embolic events in AF patients, is associated with an increased bleeding risk. Thus, not all patients with AF are candidates for OAC and some are only candidates for OAC in the short term. Of the available nonpharmacologic strategies for the management of AF, left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) has emerged as a potential approach for reducing the risk of systemic thromboembolism in AF patients eligible for OAC. LAAO can be achieved either surgically or percutaneously using an epicardial, endocardial, or a combined approach. Although available data are limited, currently available LAAO devices, and those being developed, have shown promise in reducing bleeding risk in AF patients because of the reduced overall need for anticoagulation, while maintaining efficacy in preventing thromboembolism. The optimal device will reduce both embolic and hemorrhagic strokes, and other bleeds, with a high implant success rate and a low complication rate. Until that time, anticoagulation remains the gold standard that these devices strive to surpass, and thus LAAO devices are currently indicated in patients with relative contraindication to OAC therapy.

Pericardial tamponade as a complication of invasive cardiac procedures: a review of the literature

Cardiac tamponade (CT) is a rare but often life-threatening complication after invasive cardiac procedures. Some procedures favor CT. Furthermore, the incidence depends on patients’ comorbidities, sex and age and operators’ skills. In this paper we review studies and meta-analyses concerning the rate of iatrogenic CT. We define the risk factors of CT and show concise characteristics for each invasive cardiac procedure separately. According to our analysis CT occurs especially after procedures requiring transseptal puncture or perioperative anticoagulation. The overall rate of CT after such procedures varies among published studies from 0.089% to 4.8%. For this purpose we searched the PubMed database for clinical studies published up to December 2018. We included only those studies in which a defined minimum of procedures were performed (1000 for atrial fibrillation ablation, 6000 for percutaneous coronary intervention, 900 for permanent heart rhythm devices, 90 for left atrial appendage closure, 300 for transcatheter aortic valve implantation and percutaneous mitral valve repair with the Mitra-Clip system). The search was structured around the key words and variants of these terms. In addition, secondary source documents were identified by manual review of reference lists, review articles and guidelines. The search was limited to humans and adults (18+ years).

Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion: The Current Device Landscape and Future Perspectives

Since the first percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO), many studies have shown the safety and efficacy of this technique to prevent embolic strokes in nonvavular atrial fibrillation. The design, characteristics, and clinical data of the most frequently used devices for LAAO are reviewed, including the Amplatzer cardiac plug and Amulet (Abbott Vascular), the Watchman (Boston Scientific), and the LARIAT device (SentreHEART). Similarly, newer closer devices, such as Ultraseal (Cardia), LAmbre (Lifetech), and Coherex WaveCrest (Johnson & Johnson), are also discussed. Finally, new technologies still in the stage of preclinical study or in the initial clinical experience are also reviewed.

Rationale and design for AMPLATZER Amulet Left Atrial Appendage Occluder IDE randomized controlled trial (Amulet IDE Trial)

The Amulet IDE Trial is an ongoing, prospective, randomized, multi-national trial, designed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the AMPLATZER Amulet Left Atrial Appendage Occluder for stroke prevention in comparison to the WATCHMAN Left Atrial Appendage Closure Device in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. METHODS: Non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients at high risk of stroke (CHADS2 score ≥2 or a CHA2DS2-VASc score of ≥3) who are suitable candidates for left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) will be fully informed and requested to participate in the trial. A total of 1878 patients at up to 150 sites worldwide will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio between the AMPLATZER Amulet device (investigational) and the Boston Scientific WATCHMAN device (control). Each patient will be followed for 5 years, with follow-up assessments at discharge, 45 days, 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, and 24 months and then annually. The trial has three primary endpoints: A composite of procedure-related complications, or all-cause death, or major bleeding through 12 months (safety); a composite of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism through 18 months (effectiveness); and effective device LAAO, defined as residual jet around the device ≤5 mm at the 45-day visit (mechanism of action). SUMMARY: The Amulet IDE Trial is the first randomized head-to-head LAAO device trial and will provide data for the AMPLATZER Amulet occluder in a population with a high risk of stroke and bleeding.

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.

Left atrial appendage angiography is associated with the incidence and number of magnetic resonance imaging-detected brain lesions after percutaneous catheter-based left atrial appendage closure

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous catheter-based left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) is a procedure being increasingly performed in patients with atrial fibrillation and high bleeding risk.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the incidence of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-detected acute brain lesions (ABLs) as well as potential changes in neurocognitive function after percutaneous LAAC in patients with atrial fibrillation.

METHODS

Brain MRI at 3 T was performed within 24 hours before and after LAAC along with neurologic (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale [NIHSS] score) and cognitive (Montreal Cognitive Assessment [MoCA] test) assessment. Acquired MRI sequences included high-resolution diffusion-weighted imaging as well as fluid-attenuated inversion recovery.

RESULTS

Successful device implantation was achieved in all 23 patients (age 74.1 ± 10.5 years; 16 male) using the Amulet (n = 18), Occlutech (n = 3), or LAmbre (n = 2) device. Thirty-seven ABLs were detected by MRI in 12 of 23 patients (52%) after LAAC. The number of periprocedural LAA angiographies was significantly higher in patients with ABL than in those without ABL (1.67 ± 0.65 vs 1.18 ± 0.41; P = .048) and was associated with a higher number of ABL (ρ = 0.615; P = .033). Compared to pre-LAAC assessment, post-LAAC MoCA and NIHSS scores revealed similar results. After LAAC, MoCA test (mean 24.1 ± 4.6 vs 23.2 ± 4.6; P = .09) and NIHSS score (mean 1.0 ± 1.7 vs 1.2 ± 1.8; P = .1) were similar between patients with and those without ABL, respectively.

CONCLUSION

MRI-detected ABLs are commonly observed after percutaneous LAAC. The number of LAA angiographies is significantly associated with the number of ABLs; however, the clinical implications of ABL have yet to be determined.

Device-Related Thrombus After Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion With the Amulet Device

BACKGROUND

Left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) is increasingly used for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation who are considered unsuitable for a lifelong oral anticoagulant regimen. Recently, a single-centre study reported device-related thrombus formation in 16.7% of patients treated with the second-generation Amulet device (St. Jude Medical, St. Paul, MN, USA), presenting a potential major safety concern. As "real-world" data on device-related thrombus formation following LAAO with the Amulet occluder are scarce, we aimed to evaluate this outcome in a retrospective registry.

METHODS

Clinical and tranosesophageal echocardiography data after LAAO with the Amulet in consecutive patients from three centres were collated.

RESULTS

Among 38 patients (mean age 75.8 years), mean (standard deviation) CHA₂DS₂-VASc and HAS-BLED scores were 4.4 (1.2) and 3.4 (0.9), respectively. All patients underwent successful device placement without procedure-related adverse events. The antithrombotic regimen at discharge consisted of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in 27 patients (71.1%), single antiplatelet therapy in 10 patients (26.3%), and no antithrombotic therapy in one patient (2.6%). Device-related thrombus was observed in one patient (2.6%) despite DAPT regimen. The outcome of this patient was uncomplicated after adjustment of oral anticoagulant therapy. No patients presented with a thromboembolic event following LAAO during a mean (standard deviation) follow-up of 15 (5) months.

CONCLUSIONS

In this retrospective study, device-related thrombus formation with the second-generation Amulet device was rare and occurred at a rate similar to that of the previous device. Importantly, no patient experienced a device-related thromboembolic event during follow-up. Larger real-life studies are required to confirm the safety profile of this increasingly used device.

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 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 with the AMPLATZER Amulet device: periprocedural and early clinical/echocardiographic data from a global prospective observational study

AIMS

The global, prospective AMPLATZER Amulet observational study documents real-world periprocedural, transoesophageal echocardiographic (TEE) and clinical outcomes from left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) using the AMPLATZER Amulet device. The aim of this report is to describe the periprocedural and early clinical/TEE results from this study.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This multicentre prospective real-world registry included 1,088 patients (75±8.5 years, 64.5% male, CHA2DS2-VASc: 4.2±1.6, HAS-BLED: 3.3±1.1) with non-valvular atrial fibrillation; 82.8% of patients were considered to have an absolute or relative contraindication to long-term anticoagulation and 72.4% had had a previous major bleeding. Periprocedural results, clinical outcomes up to the first three months and the available TEE results from the first scheduled follow-up (one to three months post implant) are reported. Successful device implantation was achieved in 99.0% of patients. During the procedure and index hospitalisation, major adverse events occurred in 3.2% of patients. Patients were discharged on a single antiplatelet agent (23.0%), dual antiplatelets (54.3%) or an oral anticoagulant (18.9%). TEE follow-up 67±23 days post procedure in 673 patients showed adequate (<3 mm jet) occlusion of the appendage in 98.2% of patients and device thrombus in 10 patients (1.5%), as evaluated by core laboratory analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

This large real-world prospective registry of catheter-based LAAO using the AMPLATZER Amulet device reports a high implant success rate and a low periprocedural complication rate in a population with a high risk of stroke and bleeding. Transoesophageal echo data confirm good closure rates during follow-up and low rates of device-associated thrombus.

Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion: Data Update

Resection of the left atrial appendage (LAA) to prevent recurrent arterial emboli in patients with atrial fibrillation was first suggested more than 60 years ago. Longer-term follow-up from randomized studies of the safety and efficacy of transcatheter LAA occlusion has recently been completed; data from large, observational cohorts are being reported. These recent data provide further insights into procedural safety with current techniques and the ability of LAA closure to reduce thromboembolic stroke compared with warfarin anticoagulation. This review summarizes the latest data regarding transcatheter LAA occlusion, focusing on larger prospective studies and further analyses of seminal clinical trials.

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.

Safety and Efficacy of Transcatheter Left Atrial Appendage Closure for Stroke Prevention in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation

Atrial Fibrillation (AF) is associated with a substantial risk of thromboembolic stroke. Although long-term treatment with warfarin or the non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants can reduce this risk, such therapy is underutilized, and safe and consistent long-term treatment can be challenging. Transcatheter left atrial appendage (LAA) closure is an emerging alternative to long-term oral anticoagulation. Long-term follow-up of randomized clinical trials demonstrate that Watchman LAA closure provides significant reductions in hemorrhagic stroke, cardiovascular death, and all-cause mortality compared with continued warfarin therapy. Major bleeding is also reduced compared with continued warfarin therapy once the post-implant pharmacologic regimen is completed. This review summarizes the current dataset for the safety and efficacy of transcatheter LAA closure, and highlights the gaps in evidence and future directions for clinical research.

[Left atrial appendage clusure in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation : Clinical evidence 2017]

Nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common arrhythmia with a prevalence of 1-2% and affects approximately 15-20% of all octogenarians. Patients are at increased risk of thromboembolic stroke, with an overall risk of 5% per year. Thrombi form almost exclusively in the left atrial appendage (LAA), a blind sac-like heterogeneous structure trabeculated by pectinate muscles. In the past five decades, life-long oral anticoagulation (OAC) with vitamin K antagonists (VKA) has been the state-of-the art treatment to prevent stroke and systemic embolism from thrombi in AF. In the last decade, nonvitamin K dependent oral anticoagulants (NOAC) have been shown to be superior to VKA. Given the safety issues of indefinite OAC with either VKA or NOAC, it is plausible to consider left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) as an alternative strategy to prevent death, stroke or other systemic embolization, and bleeding. In recent years, LAAC has been compared to VKA in prospective randomized trials, yielding superior results regarding efficacy and noninferiority regarding safety in the mid-term. This review provides an update on the current state of LAAC in the field of prevention of death, stroke, and bleedings in patients suffering from nonvalvular AF. We elucidate the evidence and limitations of anticoagulation as the classical treatment paradigm, and review devices and techniques for LAAC. Most importantly, the current clinical evidence on efficacy and safety is outlined.

Comparison of the Feasibility and Safety of First- versus Second-Generation AMPLATZER™ Occluders for Left Atrial Appendage Closure

INTRODUCTION

Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) is considered an alternative to oral anticoagulation therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). The aim of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of the first- and second-generation AMPLATZER Devices for LAAC, AMPLATZER Cardiac Plug (ACP) versus AMPLATZER Amulet™.

METHODS

Procedural data, such as fluoroscopy time, radiation dose, and contrast-dye, as well as VARC criteria and major adverse events (MAEs) were assessed for both devices. The rate of peridevice leaks was analyzed at echocardiographic follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 196 patients with AF underwent LAAC with the ACP (n = 99) or Amulet device (n = 97). The use of Amulet was associated with significantly lower fluoroscopy time (14.8 ± 7.4 min versus 10.6 ± 4.1 min; p < 0.001), lower radiation dose (4833 ± 3360 cGy⁎cm² versus 3206 ± 2169 cGy⁎cm²; p < 0.001), and reduced amount of contrast-dye (150.2 ± 83.9 ml versus 128.8 ± 46.0 ml; p = 0.03). Furthermore, LAAC with Amulet devices resulted in lower device-resizing rates (3 versus 16 cases; p = 0.001). Peridevice leaks were less frequent in the Amulet group (12 versus 4; p = 0.03). MAE occurred in 6 ACP and 4 Amulet patients (p = 0.58).

CONCLUSIONS

The Amulet device is associated with shorter fluoroscopy times and radiation dosages, reduced use of contrast-dye, lower recapture rates, and less peridevice leaks as compared to the ACP.

Pharmacological and Non-pharmacological Treatments for Stroke Prevention in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with significant risk of stroke and other thromboembolic events, which can be effectively prevented using oral anticoagulation (OAC) with either vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) or non-VKA oral anticoagulants (NOACs) dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, or edoxaban. Until recently, VKAs were the only available means for OAC treatment. NOACs had similar efficacy and were safer than or as safe as warfarin with respect to reduced rates of hemorrhagic stroke or other intracranial bleeding in the respective pivotal randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of stroke prevention in non-valvular AF patients. Increasing “real-world” evidence on NOACs broadly confirms the results of the RCTs. However, individual patient characteristics including renal function, age, or prior bleeding should be taken into account when choosing the OAC with best risk–benefit profile. In patients ineligible for OACs, surgical or interventional stroke prevention strategies should be considered. In patients undergoing cardiac surgery for other reasons, the left atrial appendage excision, ligation, or amputation may be the best option. Importantly, residual stumps or insufficient ligation may result in even higher stroke risk than without intervention. Percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion, although requiring minimally invasive access, failed to demonstrate reduced ischemic stroke events compared to warfarin. In this review article, we summarize current treatment options and discuss the strengths and major limitations of the therapies for stroke risk reduction in patients with AF.

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.

LAA occluder device for stroke prevention: Data on WATCHMAN and other LAA occluders

NOAC therapy has become the standard for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation. Yet some patients suffer extracranial bleeding events or have other reasons to seek non-pharmacologic stroke protection. LAA occlusion with the WATCHMAN device has been proven safe and effective for such patients and is now recommended in current guidelines for this patient group; other devices also seek approval.

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.

Rationale of cerebral protection devices in left atrial appendage occlusion

AIMS

Aims of this case-series were to assess the feasibility of cerebral protection devices in interventional left atrial appendage occlusion (iLAAO) procedures and to yield insight into the pathomorphological correlate of early, procedural cerebral embolization during iLAAO.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Five consecutive patients underwent iLLO flanked by the Sentinel CPS® (Claret Medical, Inc., Santa Rosa, CA) cerebral protection system. Placement and recapture of the Sentinel^® device as well as the iLAAO were successful and safe in all cases. Histomorphometric analysis of the collected filters showed embolized debris in all patients. Acute thrombus was found in three patients, organizing thrombus in four. Interestingly, two patients had endocardial or myocardial tissue in their filters.

CONCLUSIONS

Cerebral protection during iLAAO with the Sentinel CPS^® device is feasible. Furthermore, this dataset identifies the formation and embolization of thrombus and cardiac tissue as emboligeneic sources and potential future targets to reduce procedural complications. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

A meta-analysis for efficacy and safety evaluation of transcatheter left atrial appendage occlusion in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation

OBJECTIVES

This meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of transcatheter left atrial appendage (LAA) occlusion in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation.

METHODS

The randomized controlled trials (RCT) or observational studies with any transcatheter LAA occlusion devices were searched in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane library from inception to November 2015. The incidence rates from individual studies were combined to evaluate the procedural efficacy and safety, including all-cause death, cardiac/neurological death, stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), thrombosis, hemorrhagic complications, and pericardial effusion/tamponade.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight studies involving 3585 patients and 6 different occlusion devices were eligible for our inclusion criteria. The procedural failure rate for LAA closure was 0.02 (95% CI: 0.02-0.03). The all-cause mortality was 0.03 (95% CI: 0.02-0.03) and cardiac/neurological mortality was 0 (95% CI: 0.00-0.01). The stroke/TIA rate was estimated only 0.01 (95% CI: 0.01-0.01). The incidence of thrombus on devices was 0.01 (95% CI: 0.01-0.02). The major hemorrhagic complication rate was estimated 0.01 (95% CI: 0.00-0.01). Pericardial effusion/tamponade was estimated 0.02 (95% CI: 0.02-0.03). No heterogeneity was observed for above pooled estimates (I = 0). In devices subgroups analysis, the all-cause mortality and cardiac/neurological mortality of PLAATO group were the highest (P = 0.01 and P < 0.01 respectively), whereas the incidence of thrombus on devices in the ACP group was the highest (P < 0.01). In follow-up period subgroups analysis, there were significant differences in all-cause death, stroke/TIA, major hemorrhage, and pericardial effusion/tamponade events between the shorter and longer follow-up period subgroups (P < 0.05). However, the differences among the subgroups were numerically small.

CONCLUSIONS

the pooled data demonstrated that transcatheter LAA occlusion was effective and safe in the patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation who were not suitable for lifelong antithrombotic therapy.