Left atrial appendage occlusion for stroke prevention

Anatomy and Physiologic Roles of the Left Atrial Appendage: Implications for Endocardial and Epicardial Device Closure

The left atrial appendage has been implicated as a major nidus for thrombus formation, particularly in atrial fibrillation. This discovery has prompted substantial interest in the development of left atrial appendage exclusion devices aimed at decreasing systemic thromboembolism risk. Its deceptively simple appearance belies the remarkable complexity that characterizes its anatomy and physiology. We highlight the key anatomic features and variations of the left atrial appendage as well as its relationships with surrounding structures. We also summarize crucial anatomic factors that should be taken into account by the interventional cardiologist when planning for or performing left atrial appendage exclusion procedures.

Pneumatic Burst Pressures After Inverted Closure of the Left Atrial Appendage: An Ex Vivo Model

BACKGROUND

The left atrial (LA) appendage (LAA) is the main source of thromboembolism in atrial fibrillation. This study addressed initial pressure resistance of surgical LAA closures.

METHODS

In an experimental model, pneumatic pressure resistances of different surgical closure techniques were examined, and variations in technique and access were studied. In preparations of the LA from freshly slaughtered pigs, pneumatic pressure was applied to the LAA. Burst pressures (mbar) of various closure techniques (n = 12 specimens per group) were measured: (1) epicardial double-layer suture, (2) epicardial stapler closure (staple height 2 mm), (3) epicardial stapler closure (staple height 4, 4.5, and 5 mm), (4) endocardial inverse double-layer suture, (5) endocardial inverse stapler seam (staple height 2 mm), and (6) endocardial inverse stapler seam (staple height 4, 4.5, and 5 mm).

RESULTS

The mean burst pressure in group 1 was 175.5 ± 19.35 mbar. There was no significant difference compared with group 2 (174.5 ± 28.45 mbar) or group 3 (176 ± 27.69 mbar). Group 4 scored significantly higher than all other groups (198.9 ± 18.35 mbar). Burst pressures in group 5 (136.2 ± 16.68 mbar) were significantly lower than in group 4 and in group 6 (165.1 ± 21.94 mbar), but the differences between groups 5 and 6 were also significant.

CONCLUSIONS

In an ex vivo model, double-layer suturing of the inverted LAA from an internal LA access led to higher burst pressures compared with epicardial suturing and with both endocardial and epicardial stapled closures.