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

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.

Safety of Amulet Left Atrial Appendage Occluder and Watchman Device for Left Atrial Appendage Closure in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Left atrial appendage (LAA) closure is an alternative to chronic anticoagulation for stroke prevention in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Multiple devices were used for LAA closure, with the Amplatzer Amulet LAA Occluder (Abbott, Chicago, IL, USA) and Watchman device (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA, USA) being the most commonly used in clinical practice. In August 2021, the FDA approved the use of the Amplatzer Amulet LAA Occluder. There is still a knowledge gap in the safety profile of the Amplatzer Amulet LAA Occluder device in comparison to the Watchman device.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess and compare the safety profile peri-procedure and post-procedure between the Amplatzer Amulet LAA Occluder and Watchman devices.

METHODS

Patients who underwent LAA closure using Watchman or Amulet devices from July 2015 to August 2020 at the American University of Beirut Medical Center were included in the analysis. Primary endpoints included peri-operative and post-procedural complications (thromboembolic events, bleeding complications, vascular access complications, pericardial effusion/tamponade, device positional complications and in-hospital death).

RESULTS

The study included 37 patients (21 had Watchman devices, 16 had Amplatzer Amulet LAA Occluder devices, and 28 were men, mean age 76.57 ± 9.3 years). Seven patients developed post-procedural iatrogenic atrial septal defects (four in the Watchman group vs three in the Amulet group, p-value=0.982). Three patients developed pericardial effusion (one in the Watchman vs two in the Amulet group, p-value=0.394). Only one patient developed peri-device leak (one in the Watchman group vs none in the Amulet group, p-value=0.283). One device could not be deployed (one in the Amulet group vs none in the Watchman group, p-value=0.191). None of the patients developed in-hospital death, cardiac tamponade, device embolism, device thrombosis, stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA), cranial bleeding, or arrhythmias after the procedure. The rate of peri-operative complications was similar between both groups. Both groups displayed low rates of adverse events in the peri-operative and post-operative periods.

CONCLUSION

There was no significant difference in the safety profile of Amplatzer Amulet LAA Occluders and Watchman devices. There was a low incidence of peri-operative and post-operative adverse events with the implanted devices.

Safety and efficacy of percutaneous Watchman 2.5 device versus Amplatzer Amulet for left atrial appendage closure in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation: A systematic review and study-level meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

In patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF), mechanical occlusion of the left atrial appendage (LAA) using a permanently implanted device may be an effective alternative to oral anti-coagulants (OAC). To facilitate left atrial appendage closure (LAAC), multiple percutaneous devices have been proposed. Watchman Generation 2.5 and Amplatzer Amulet are the two most popular used devices for preventing stroke in patients with NVAF. We sought to compare safety and efficacy outcomes between Watchman 2.5 and Amplatzer Amulet in patients undergoing LAAC procedure.

METHODS

We carried out a comprehensive and systematic search of the databases PubMed and Scopus, for all studies that compared the safety and efficacy of Watchman 2.5 and Amplatzer Amulet devices, from inception, till June 2023. We performed the statistical analysis using Review Manager (V.5.4.1 Cochrane Collaboration, London, United Kingdom). The safety outcomes of interest included device success, device-related thrombus, device embolization perioperatively and at follow-up, perioperative pericardial perfusion events, and perioperative cardiac tamponade events. Efficacy outcomes were all-cause mortality perioperatively and at follow-up, cardiovascular (CV) mortality at follow-up, stroke, major and minor bleeding events at follow-up, transient ischemic attack (TIA) in follow-up period, thromboembolic events in follow-up period, and peri-device leakage in perioperative period. All data was analysed using a random-effects model, and presented as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (95%CIs).

RESULTS

Regarding safety outcomes, device success was non-significantly reduced in Watchman group when compared with Amulet (RR 0.99, p = 0.57; I2 = 34%). In contrast, device-related thrombus was non-significantly increased in Watchman 2.5 group in comparison to Amulet (RR 1.44, p = 0.11; I2 = 0%). There was no significant difference between the devices in terms of device embolization in the perioperative (RR 0.36, p = 0.38; I2 = 22%) and follow-up (RR 2.24, p = 0.13; I2 = 0%) periods. Likewise, there was no significant difference in the risks of pericardial effusion (RR 0.98, p = 0.98; I2 = 0%), and cardiac tamponade (RR 0.65, p = 0.76; I2 = 62%) perioperatively. Regarding efficacy outcomes, no significant difference was observed in all-cause mortality between devices perioperatively (RR 0.51, p = 0.32; I2 = 0%) and at follow-up (RR 1.08, p = 0.56; I2 = 0%). CV-mortality was non-significantly reduced in Watchman group when compared with Amulet (RR 0.57, p = 0.20; I2 = 0%). The Amulet device was not superior to the Watchman device in terms of stroke at follow-up (RR 1.13, p = 0.63; I2 = 0%). Sub-group analysis showed comparable ischaemic and haemorrhagic stroke events between two devices. Furthermore, at follow-up, there was no significant difference in major (RR 1.06, p = 0.63; I2 = 0%) and minor bleeding events (RR 1.81, p = 0.17; I2 = 0%) between the two devices. No difference was observed for trans-ischemic attack (RR 1.89, p = 0.24; I2 = 0%) and thromboembolic events (RR 0.96, p = 0.96; I2 = 0%) at follow-up. No significant difference was observed between devices for peri-device leakage in perioperative period (RR 2.16, p = 0.05; I2 = 0%).

CONCLUSION

The data suggested that LAAC is safe and efficacious procedure irrespective of device used, with generally low complication rates. Watchman generation 2.5 remains non-superior to Amplatzer Amulet in terms of safety and efficacy outcomes.

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.

Amplatzer amulet versus watchman device for percutaneous left atrial appendage closure: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The Amplatzer Amulet (AA) and Watchman devices (WD) are the 2 most frequently used devices for percutaneous LAA closure globally.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety and clinical outcomes associated with these 2 devices in patients undergoing percutaneous LAA closure.

METHOD

We systematically searched all electronic databases from inception until February 21, 2023. The primary endpoint was procedure related complications. Secondary endpoints were device related thrombus, stroke, cardiovascular mortality, peri device leak, systemic embolism, and all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 3 randomized clinical trials with 2150 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The mean age was 75 and 76 years in the Amplatzer group and in the Watchman group, respectively. The odds of procedure-related complications (OR, 1.80 [95% CI: 1.21-2.67], P < .001) were significantly higher among patients with AA compared to the WD. However, the odds of all-cause mortality (OR, 0.75 (95% CI: 0.49-1.16), P = .20), stroke (OR, 0.79 [95% CI: 0.47-1.34], P = .39), systemic/pulmonary embolism (OR, 1.34 [95% CI: 0.30-6.04], P = .70), and major bleeding (OR, 1.10 [95% CI: 0.83-1.48], P = .50) were comparable between the two devices. The odds of device related thrombus (OR, 0.72 [95% CI: 0.46-1.14], P = .17) was comparable between both the group of patients, however the incidence of peri device leak was significantly lower in AA group (OR, 0.41 [95% CI: 0.26-0.66], P < .001) compared with WD group of patients.

CONCLUSION

The AA was not superior to the Watchman device in terms of safety and efficacy. However, the Amulet occluder was associated with a higher incidence of procedure-related complications, and lower peri device leak.

Impact of left atrial appendage occlusion device position on potential determinants of device-related thrombus: a patient-specific in silico study

BACKGROUND

Device-related thrombus (DRT) after left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) is potentially linked to adverse events. Although clinical reports suggest an effect of the device type and position on the DRT risk, in-depth studies of its mechanistic basis are needed. This in silico study aimed to assess the impact of the position of non-pacifier (Watchman) and pacifier (Amulet) LAAO devices on surrogate markers of DRT risk.

METHODS

The LAAO devices were modeled with precise geometry and virtually implanted in different positions into a patient-specific left atrium. Using computational fluid dynamics, the following values were quantified: residual blood, wall shear stress (WSS) and endothelial cell activation potential (ECAP).

RESULTS

In comparison to an ostium-fitted device position, deep implantation led to more residual blood, lower average WSS and higher ECAP surrounding the device, especially on the device's atrial surface and the surrounding tissue, suggesting increased risk for potential thrombus. For the non-pacifier device, an off-axis device orientation resulted in even more residual blood, higher ECAP and similar average WSS as compared to an ostium-fitted device position. Overall, the pacifier device showed less residual blood, higher average WSS and lower ECAP, compared to the non-pacifier device.

CONCLUSIONS

In this in silico study, both LAAO device type and implant position showed an impact on potential markers of DRT in terms of blood stasis, platelet adhesion and endothelial dysfunction. Our results present a mechanistic basis for clinically observed risk factors of DRT and the proposed in silico model may aid in the optimization of device development and procedural aspects.

Peridevice Leak After Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion: Incidence, Mechanisms, Clinical Impact, and Management

Left atrial appendage occlusion is an increasingly adopted stroke prevention strategy in patients with atrial fibrillation. However, peridevice leaks after the procedure are not infrequent and have recently been shown to confer a higher risk for subsequent ischemic events. In this paper, the authors review the available research on the frequency, mechanisms, clinical significance, and management of peridevice leak after percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion.

Impact of pre-existing left atrial appendage occluder on catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Patients with drug-refractory atrial fibrillation (AF) and pre-existing left atrial appendage occluder (LAAO) device may need pulmonary vein isolation (PVI). In this pioneer study, we investigated the impact of pre-existing LAAO on AF substrates and outcomes of PVI.

METHODS

From our AF registry, 65 drug-refractory patients with LAAO (72.1±11.4 years old; CHA₂DS₂-VASc score 3.7±2.1) were included for PVI. A balanced control group with 124 patients without LAAO receiving PVI (70.9±10.2 years old, CHA₂DS₂-VASc 3.6±1.9) were included for comparison.

RESULTS

We found PVI is feasible in patients with AF with pre-existing LAAO without new peridevice leak. Two patients with LAAO and one without LAAO had stroke during the procedure (2/65 vs 1/124, p=0.272). Complete isolation of left-sided PVs might not be achieved if the device covered the ridge joining the left atrial (LA) appendage to the body of LA. Local electrogram could be detected over LAAO and there was propagation of conduction over the occluder either under sinus rhythm or under atrial arrhythmia. LAAO might modulate LA substrate and induce peridevice fibrosis, peridevice LA flutter and complex fractionate atrial electrogram. The AF recurrent rate at 1 year was similar between the two groups (9.2% vs 8.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

This pioneer study first showed impacts of LAAO on LA substrate and PVI procedure.

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.