CT assessment of the left atrial appendage post-transcatheter occlusion - A systematic review and meta analysis

Incidence, progression, and predictors of left atrial appendage sealing after Watchman FLX device implantation with computed tomographic assessment

BACKGROUND

Limited data exists regarding incidence, progression, and predictors of left atrial appendage (LAA) sealing after transcatheter LAA closure. We aimed to evaluate the incidence, progression, and predictive factors associated with LAA sealing after LAA closure.

METHODS

This study includes patients who underwent successful LAA closure with Watchman FLX device and had both pre- and postprocedural computed tomography (CT). Postprocedural CT was performed 45 days after LAA closure and used to evaluate residual LAA patency. Patient who had residual LAA patency at 45 days underwent 1-year follow-up CT.

RESULTS

A total of 105 patients (mean age: 75.2 ± 9.6 years; 53.3% female) who underwent successful LAA closure with Watchman FLX device and had pre- and postprocedural CT at 45 days were included. Residual patency was observed in 35 (33.3%) patients: 21 (20.0%) patients showed complete contrast opacification in LAA (complete LAA patency) while 14 (13.3%) patients showed contrast opacification only in the distal LAA (distal LAA patency). Among patients with residual LAA patency at 45 days, the rate of LAA sealing at 1 year was significantly higher in the distal LAA patency group than in the complete LAA patency group (75.0% vs. 16.7%; p = 0.019). Increased depth oversizing was associated with both distal LAA patency and complete LAA patency.

CONCLUSION

Postprocedural CT at 45 days detected patent LAA in one-third of patients after LAA closure. LAA sealing was more frequently observed at 1 year among the distal LAA patency group than the complete LAA patency group.

The Effect of Peri-Device Leaks on Ischaemic Stroke/Transient Ischaemic Attack/Systemic Embolism after Left Atrial Appendage Closure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) is a safe and effective method for preventing embolic events in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. However, peri-device leaks (PDLs) are sometimes unavoidable. Controversy exists regarding whether PDLs lead to embolic events.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to explore the association between PDLs and embolic events, including ischaemic stroke, transient ischaemic attacks (TIAs), and systemic embolism (SE).

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search of the PubMed, Web of Science, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library databases for studies published up to September 25, 2022, to compare the rate of ischaemic stroke/TIA/SE between the PDL group and the non-PDL group after LAAC.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies comprising 54,405 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The PDL group detected by transoesophageal echocardiography (TEE) had a significantly higher rate of ischaemic stroke/TIA/SE than the non-PDL group (OR: 1.20, 95% CI: 1.08-1.33, p = 0.0009). However, no difference in ischaemic stroke/TIA/SE was found between the PDL and non-PDL subgroups of the cardiac computed tomography angiography (CCTA) group (OR: 1.12, 95% CI: 0.51-2.50, p = 0.77). CCTA and TEE showed different rates of PDL detection, with the CCTA group having a higher rate of PDL detection (p < 0.0001), especially for trivial leaks.

CONCLUSIONS

PDL detected by TEE increases the risk of embolic events after LAAC. However, no association was found between PDL and ischaemic stroke/TIA/SE in the CCTA group, which showed a higher rate of PDL detection than TEE, particularly for trivial leaks. In the future, CCTA may be used to explore the relationship between PDL size and ischaemic stroke/TIA/SE.

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.

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.

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.

Safety and feasibility of peri-device leakage closure after LAAO: an international, multicentre collaborative study

BACKGROUND

Residual peri-device leakage (PDL) is frequent after left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO). Little is known about management strategies, procedural aspects and outcomes of interventional PDL closure.

AIMS

The aim of this study was to assess the safety and feasibility of PDL closure after LAAO.

METHODS

Fifteen centres contributed data on baseline characteristics, in-hospital and follow-up outcomes of patients who underwent PDL closure after LAAO. Outcomes of interest included acute success and complication rates and long-term efficacy of the procedure.

RESULTS

A total of 95 patients were included and a cumulative number of 104 leaks were closed. The majority of PDLs were detected within 90 days (range 41-231). Detachable coils were the most frequent approach (42.3%), followed by the use of the AMPLATZER Vascular Plug II (29.8%) and the AMPLATZER Duct Occluder II (17.3%). Technical success was 100% with 94.2% of devices placed successfully within the first attempt. There were no major complications requiring surgical or transcatheter interventions. During follow-up (96 days [range 49-526]), persistent leaks were found in 18 patients (18.9%), yielding a functional success rate of 82.7%, although PDLs were significantly reduced in size (pre-leak sizemax: 6.1±3.6 mm vs post-leak sizemax: 2.5±1.3 mm, p<0.001). None of the patients had a leak >5 mm. Major adverse events during follow-up occurred in 5 patients (2 ischaemic strokes, 2 intracranial haemorrhages, and 1 major gastrointestinal bleeding).

CONCLUSIONS

Several interventional techniques have become available to achieve PDL closure. They are associated with high technical and functional success and low complication rates.

Amulet or Watchman Device for Percutaneous Left Atrial Appendage Closure: Primary Results of the SWISS-APERO Randomized Clinical Trial

Background: No study has so far compared Amulet with the new Watchman FLX in terms of residual left atrial appendage (LAA) patency or clinical outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous LAA closure (LAAC). Methods: In the investigator-initiated SWISS APERO trial, patients undergoing LAAC were randomized (1:1) open-label to receive Amulet or Watchman 2.5 or FLX (Watchman) across 8 European centres. The primary endpoint was the composite of justified crossover to a non-randomized device during LAAC procedure or residual LAA patency detected by cardiac computed tomography angiography (CCTA) at 45 days. The secondary endpoints included procedural complications, device related thrombus (DRT), peridevice leak (PDL) at transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) and clinical outcomes at 45 days. Results: Between June 2018, and May 2021, 221 patients were randomly assigned to Amulet (111 [50.2%]) or Watchman (110 [49.8%]), of whom 25 (22.7%) patients included before October 2019 received Watchman 2.5, and 85 (77.3%) patients received Watchman FLX. The primary endpoint was assessable in 205 (92.8%) patients and occurred in 71 (67.6%) Amulet and 70 (70.0%) Watchman patients respectively (risk ratio [RR] 0.97 [95% CI 0.80- 1.16]; P=0.713). A single justified cross-over occurred in an Amulet patient who fulfilled LAA patency criteria at 45-day CCTA. Major procedure related complications occurred more frequently in the Amulet group (9.0% vs. 2.7%; P=0.047), owing to more frequent bleeding (7.2% vs.1.8%). At 45 days, the PDL rate at TEE was higher with Watchman than Amulet (27.5% vs. 13.7%, p=0.020), albeit none was major (i.e. > 5 mm), whereas DRT was detected in 1 (0.9%) patient with Amulet and 3 (3.0%) patients with Watchman at CCTA and in 2 (2.1%) and 5 (5.5%) patients at TEE, respectively. Clinical outcomes at 45 days did not differ between the groups. Conclusions: Amulet was not associated with lower rate of the composite of crossover or residual LAA patency compared with Watchman at 45-day CCTA. Amulet, was however associated with lower PDL rates at TEE, higher procedural complications and similar clinical outcomes at 45 days compared with Watchman. The clinical relevance of CCTA-detected LAA patency requires further investigation. Clinical Trial Registration: URL https://clinicaltrials.gov Unique Identifier NCT03399851.