Comparison between Amulet and Watchman left atrial appendage closure devices: A real-world, single center experience

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.

Short-term antithrombotic strategies after left atrial appendage occlusion: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Background: Percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) has emerged as a stroke prevention strategy in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF), and these patients were required to receive antithrombotic therapy post-procedure. However, the optimal antithrombotic strategy after LAAO remains controversial. This study explored the safety and efficacy of different antithrombotic strategies after LAAO through a network comparison method. Methods: We systematically searched the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for studies that reported the interested efficacy and safety outcomes (stroke, device-related thrombus (DRT), and major bleeding) of different antithrombotic strategies [DAPT (dual antiplatelet therapy), DOACs (direct oral anticoagulants), and VKA (vitamin k antagonist)] in patients who had experienced LAAO. Pairwise comparisons and network meta-analysis were performed for the interested outcomes. Risk ratios (RRs) with their confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model. The rank of the different strategies was calculated using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). Results: Finally, 10 observational studies involving 1,674 patients were included. There was no significant difference in stroke, DRT, and major bleeding among the different antithrombotic strategies (DAPT, DOACs, and VKA). Furthermore, DAPT ranked the worst in terms of stroke (SUCRA: 19.8%), DRT (SUCRA: 3.6%), and major bleeding (SUCRA: 6.6%). VKA appeared to be superior to DOACs in terms of stroke (SUCRA: 74.9% vs. 55.3%) and DRT (SUCRA: 82.3% vs. 64.1%) while being slightly inferior to DOACs in terms of major bleeding (SUCRA: 71.0% vs. 72.4%). Conclusion: No significant difference was found among patients receiving DAPT, DOACs, and VKA in terms of stroke, DRT, and major bleeding events after LAAO. The SUCRA indicated that DAPT was ranked the worst among all antithrombotic strategies due to the higher risk of stroke, DRT, and major bleeding events, while VKAs were ranked the preferred antithrombotic strategy. However, DOACs are worthy of consideration due to their advantage of convenience.

Non-Pharmacological Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common arrhythmia worldwide. It is associated with increased mortality and morbidity, especially due to the increased risk of ischemic stroke and systemic embolism in these patients. For this reason, thromboembolism prevention is the cornerstone of managing AF, and oral anticoagulation is nowadays the first-line treatment. However, since most thrombi form in the left atrial appendage and anticoagulant therapy may have side effects and be contraindicated in some patients, surgical and percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) have emerged as a non-pharmacological alternative. This review summarizes all existing evidence on surgical and percutaneous LAAO.

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.

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.

Combined MitraClip and Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion: Is It Still a Utopia?

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia, affecting 32 million individuals worldwide, particularly the elderly. It is the main cause of ischemic strokes. Oral anticoagulation (OAC) is the gold standard strategy for stroke prevention. Still, there is a not negligible share of patients who have contraindications to this therapy, more frequently due to an increased risk of bleeding. AF is often associated with moderate-severe mitral regurgitation (MR), the second most frequent valvular disease in elderly patients. Data from the literature reported that more than half of patients with severe mitral regurgitation are not suitable candidates for cardiac surgery. Given the progressive aging of the population and the simultaneous increase in the number of patients with comorbidities, the advent of new therapeutic strategies, such as the combined approach of Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion (LAAO) and MitraClip procedure, is acquiring great interest. At present, the category of patients who may benefit from combined percutaneous therapies and the long-term risks and benefits might not have been identified. Despite the efforts of researchers, the correct selection of patients is a very important clinical need that has not yet been met to avoid committing human and financial resources to interventions that may be unnecessary. It is conceivable that the most modern and recent innovations in cardiovascular imaging, particularly three-dimensional echocardiography and new methods of volume imaging, could improve our ability to select patients appropriately. Since data in the literature are scarce, future studies will be needed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of combined MitraClip and LAA occlusion.

Sex Differences in Efficacy and Safety After Left Atrial Appendage Closure: A 4.3-Year Follow-Up Analysis

Introduction

Women are related to higher stroke risk and poorer outcome after stroke attack in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). The sex differences in efficacy and safety after left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) have remained elusive. This retrospective study aimed to investigate the safety, feasibility, and clinical outcomes of LAAC between women and men.

Methods

From 2014 to 2018, 395 patients who underwent LAAC in our center were enrolled in this retrospective study. Baseline clinical characteristics, procedural parameters, and postoperative follow-up data were collected and compared between women and men.

Results

The study included 154 women and 241 men. Compared with men, women were older (68.1 ± 7.9 vs. 64.6 ± 8.8, p < 0.01**), with higher CHA2DS2-VASc score (4.0 ± 1.7 vs. 3.0 ± 1.6, p < 0.01**). During the mean follow-up duration of 1,566 days (4.3 years), there were 39 major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE, including 19 cardiovascular or unexplained deaths, 15 ischemic strokes, and 5 major bleedings) recorded in 34 patients. The overall rate of ischemic stroke was 0.9 per 100 patient-years, and the overall rate of MACE was 2.1 per 100 patient-years. The cardiovascular or unexplained death and major bleeding were comparable between women and men. Compared with men, women had lower rates of ischemic stroke, fatal or disabling ischemic stroke, MACE, and fatal or disabling MACE, but none of them reached statistical differences (HR: 0.361, p = 0.099, HR: 0.429, p = 0.276, HR: 0.600, p = 0.170, and HR: 0.621, p = 0.254, respectively). In the adjusted analyses with multivariate Cox regression models, women had a lower fatal or disabling ischemic stroke rate compared with men (HR: 0.100, p = 0.041).

Conclusion

Left atrial appendage closure was feasible and safe for patients of both genders. The ischemic stroke, cardiovascular or unexplained death, and major bleeding were comparable between women and men. However, women were the independent protective factors against fatal or disabling ischemic stroke after LAAC implantation.

Comparison between Amplatzer and Watchman left atrial appendage closure devices for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation：a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The Amplatzer and Watchman left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) devices are the two most frequently used devices for left atrial appendage closure devices worldwide. This meta-analysis aims to compare the safety and efficacy of the two devices.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library for studies up to 6 February 2022 that compared the safety and efficacy of the Amplatzer and Watchman devices.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies including 2,150 patients in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 2,526 patients in observational studies were included in the meta-analysis. Amplatzer device was associated with higher rates of major procedure-related complications (odds ratio [OR]: 1.99, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.45-2.74, P <0.0001) and device embolization (OR: 1.99, 95% CI: 1.09-3.64, P =0.03). However, Amplatzer device had lower rates of total peridevice leak (PDL) (OR:0.48, 95% CI: 0.27-0.83, P =0.009), significant PDL (OR:0.27, 95% CI: 0.12-0.57, P =0.0007) and device-related thrombus (DRT) (OR:0.67, 95% CI: 0.48-0.95, P =0.02). No statistical differences were observed between the two devices in other safety and efficacy endpoints, such as pericardial effusion, cardiac tamponade, air embolism, vascular complications, ischemic stroke/ transient ischemic attack (TIA), hemorrhagic stroke, all-cause death, cardiovascular death and bleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

Amplatzer LAAC device was associated with higher rates of major procedure-related complications, especially in device embolization. Watchman LAAC device was associated with higher rates of PDL and DRT. There were no significant differences between two devices in ischemic stroke/TIA, hemorrhagic stroke, all-cause death, cardiovascular death and bleeding.