Watchman Occlusion in Long-Standing Persistent Atrial Fibrillation

Computed Tomography Scan Evidence for Left Atrial Appendage Short-Term Remodeling Following Percutaneous Occlusion: Impact of Device Oversizing

Background The interrelationships between left atrial appendage (LAA) dimensions and device following implantation are unknown. We aimed to analyze the impact of Watchman device implantation on LAA dimensions following its percutaneous closure and potential predictors of remodeling. Methods and Results All consecutive LAA closure procedures performed at 2 centers between November 2017 and December 2020 were included in the WATCH-DUAL (Watchman 2.5 Versus Watchman FLX in a Dual-Center Left Atrial Appendage Closure Cohort) registry. This study included patients who had pre- and postintervention computed tomography scan analysis. The LAA and device dimensions were measured in a centralized core lab by 3-dimensional computed tomography scan reconstruction methods, focusing on the device landing zone. This analysis included 104 patients (age, 76.0 [range, 72.0-83.0] years; 72% men; 53% Watchman FLX; 47% Watchman 2.5). The baseline characteristics were comparable between Watchman 2.5 and Watchman FLX groups, except for the higher use of oversizing in the latter group. The median delay for computed tomography control was 49 (range, 43-64) days. The landing zone area (median, 446 [range, 363-523] versus 290 [222-366] mm2; P<0.001) and minimal diameter (median, 23.0 [range, 20.7-24.8] versus 16.7 [14.7-19.4] mm; P<0.001) significantly increased after implantation. The absolute (median, 157 [range, 98-220] versus 85 [18-148] mm2, P<0.001) and relative (median, 50% [range, 32%-79%] versus 26% [4%-50%]; P<0.001) increases in landing zone area were more pronounced in patients with oversized device. Baseline LAA dimensions were smaller, landing zone eccentricity larger, and oversized device more frequent in patients with significant overexpansion compared with the others. Conclusions LAA dimensions increased at the site of the Watchman prosthesis after implantation, suggesting a local positive remodeling after the procedure. This phenomenon was more pronounced in the case of oversized devices.

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.

Left atrial appendage morphology with the progression of atrial fibrillation

Left atrial appendage (LAA) size is crucial for determining the indication of transcatheter LAA closure. The aim of this study was to evaluate the differences in LAA morphology according to the types of atrial fibrillation (AF). A total of 299 patients (mean age: 67 ± 13 years) who underwent transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) were included. Patients were classified into non-AF (n = 64), paroxysmal AF (n = 86), persistent AF (n = 87), or long-standing persistent AF (n = 62). LAA morphology, including LAA ostial diameter and depth, was assessed using TEE. Patients with long-standing persistent AF had larger LAA ostial diameter and depth and lower LAA flow velocity. The maximum LAA ostial diameter was 19 ± 4 mm in patients with non-AF, 21 ± 4 mm in patients with paroxysmal AF, 23 ± 5 mm in patients with persistent AF, and 26 ± 5 mm in patients with long-standing persistent AF. LAA ostial diameter was increased by 2 or 3 mm with the progression of AF. LAA ostial diameter was correlated with LA volume index (R = 0.37, P < 0.01) and the duration of continuous AF (R = 0.30, P < 0.01), but not with age or the period from the onset of AF. In conclusion, LAA size was increased with the progression of AF.

Watchman FLX vs. Watchman 2.5 in a Dual-Center Left Atrial Appendage Closure Cohort: the WATCH-DUAL study

AIMS

No studies have compared Watchman 2.5 (W2.5) with Watchman FLX (FLX) devices to date. We aimed at comparing the FLX with W2.5 devices with respect to clinical outcomes, left atrial appendage (LAA) sealing properties and device-related thrombus (DRT).

METHODS AND RESULTS

All consecutive left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) procedures performed at two European centres between November 2017 and February 2021 were included. Procedure-related complications and net adverse cardiovascular events (NACE) at 6 months after LAAC were recorded. At 45-day computed tomography (CT) follow-up, intra- (IDL) and peri- (PDL) device leak, residual patent neck area (RPNA), and DRT were assessed by a Corelab. Out of 144 LAAC consecutive procedures, 71 and 73 interventions were performed using W2.5 and FLX devices, respectively. There were no differences in terms of procedure-related complications (4.2% vs. 2.7%, P = 0.626). At 45-day CT, the FLX was associated with lower frequency of IDL [21.3% vs. 40.0%; P = 0.032; odds ratio (OR): 0.375; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.160-0.876; P = 0.024], similar rate of PDL (29.5% vs. 42.0%; P = 0.170), and smaller RPNA [6 (0-36) vs. 40 (6-115) mm2; P = 0.001; OR: 0.240; 95% CI: 0.100-0.577; P = 0.001] compared with the W2.5 group. At 45 days, rate of DRT as detected by CT and/or transoesophageal echocardiography (TOE), was higher with W2.5 (6.0% vs. 0%, P = 0.045). At 6-month follow-up, NACE did not differ between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In this cohort of consecutive LAACs, FLX as compared to W2.5, was associated with similar procedure-related complications and 6-month NACE, but with improved LAA neck coverage, and lower IDL and DRT.

The Watchman device for preventing stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation

ABSTRACT

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is one of the most common sustained dysrhythmias that increases in prevalence with age, and is associated with strokes that can lead to significant patient morbidity and mortality. AF prevalence is projected to double over the next 25 years, demonstrating the need for innovative and effective stroke prevention modalities. Two options are direct oral anticoagulants and left atrial appendage occlusion. This article discusses the Watchman device, a left atrial appendage occlusion device that provides an option for patients with contraindications for anticoagulation.

Impact of atrial fibrillation pattern on outcomes after left atrial appendage closure: lessons from the prospective LAARGE registry

BACKGROUND

Non-paroxysmal (NPAF) forms of atrial fibrillation (AF) have been reported to be associated with an increased risk for systemic embolism or death.

METHODS

Comparison of procedural details and long-term outcomes in patients (pts) with paroxysmal AF (PAF) against controls with NPAF in the prospective, multicentre observational registry of patients undergoing LAAC (LAARGE).

RESULTS

A total of 638 pts (PAF 274 pts, NPAF 364 pts) were enrolled. In both groups, a history of PVI was rare (4.0% vs 1.6%, p = 0.066). The total CHA₂DS₂-VASc score was lower in the PAF group (4.4 ± 1.5 vs 4.6 ± 1.5, p = 0.033), while HAS-BLED score (3.8 ± 1.1 vs 3.9 ± 1.1, p = 0.40) was comparable. The rate of successful implantation was equally high (97.4% vs 97.8%, p = 0.77). In the three-month echo follow-up, LA thrombi (2.1% vs 7.3%, p = 0.12) and peridevice leak > 5 mm (0.0% vs 7.1%, p = 0.53) were numerically higher in the NPAF group. Overall, in-hospital complications occurred in 15.0% of the PAF cohort and 10.7% of the NPAF cohort (p = 0.12). In the one-year follow-up, unadjusted mortality (8.4% vs 14.0%, p = 0.039) and combined outcome of death, stroke and systemic embolism (8.8% vs 15.1%, p = 0.022) were significantly higher in the NPAF cohort. After adjusting for CHA₂DS₂-VASc and previous bleeding, NPAF was associated with increased death/stroke/systemic embolism (HR 1.67, 95% CI 1.02-2.72, p = 0.041).

CONCLUSION

Atrial fibrillation type did not impair periprocedural safety or in-hospital MACE patients undergoing LAAC. However, after one year, NPAF was associated with higher mortality.

Transcatheter embolic coils to treat peridevice leaks after left atrial appendage closure

BACKGROUND

Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) has proven to be an effective alternative to long-term oral anticoagulation in the prevention of thromboembolic events in patients with atrial fibrillation. In a minority of patients, inadequate seal may result in persistent peridevice flow and inability of the appendage to fully thrombose, thereby representing a potential source for thromboembolism.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to study the use of endovascular coiling of the appendage to address persistent peridevice leak in patients undergoing LAAC with the Watchman device.

METHODS

This is a retrospective single-center analysis involving patients who underwent placement of a LAAC device and returned for endovascular coiling to address persistent device leak between 2018 and 2020. Baseline characteristics, procedural outcomes, and follow-up echocardiograms were analyzed to demonstrate the feasibility and safety of this technique.

RESULTS

Patients (N = 20) were identified with a mean leak size of 3.8 ± 1.3 mm (range 2.5-7 mm), all of whom had a non-thrombosed appendage. Acute procedural success was achieved in 95% of patients. Complete or significant reduction in flow beyond the LAAC device was achieved in 61% and 33% of patients, respectively. The 1 procedure-related adverse event was a pericardial effusion before coil deployment, requiring percutaneous drainage.

CONCLUSION

The clinical impact of residual peridevice leak post-Watchman implantation is a matter of continuing investigation. However, appendage coiling represents a new therapeutic tool to address this potential source for thromboembolism. Further studies should address the clinical impact of this technique, including the safety of discontinuing anticoagulation after successful coiling.

A new clinical risk score for predicting the prevalence of low-voltage areas in patients undergoing atrial fibrillation ablation

INTRODUCTION

Although the presence of left atrial low-voltage areas (LVAs) is strongly associated with the recurrence of atrial fibrillation (AF) after ablation, few methods are available to classify the prevalence of LVAs. The purpose of this study was to establish a risk score for predicting the prevalence of LVAs in patients undergoing ablation for AF.

METHODS

We enrolled 1004 consecutive patients who underwent initial ablation for AF (age, 68 ± 10 years old; female, 346 (34%); persistent AF, 513 (51%)). LVAs were deemed present when the voltage map after pulmonary vein isolation demonstrated low-voltage areas with a peak-to-peak bipolar voltage of <0.5 mV covering ≥5 cm² of the left atrium.

RESULTS

LVAs were present in 206 (21%) patients. The SPEED score was obtained as the total number of independent predictors as identified on multivariate analysis, namely female sex (odds ratio [OR], 3.4 [95% confidence interval {CI} 2.2-5.2], p < .01), persistent AF (OR, 1.8 [95% CI, 1.1-3.0], p = .02), age ≥ 70 years (OR, 2.3 [95% CI, 1.5-3.4], p < .01), elevated brain natriuretic peptide ≥100 pg/ml or N-terminal probrain natriuretic peptide ≥400 pg/ml (OR, 1.7 [95% CI, 1.02-2.8], p = .04), and diabetes mellitus (OR, 1.8 [95% CI, 1.1-2.8], p = .02). LVAs were more frequent in patients with a higher SPEED score, and prevalence increased with each additional SPEED score point (OR, 2.4 [95% CI, 2.0-2.8], p < .01).

CONCLUSION

The SPEED score accurately predicts the prevalence of LVAs in patients undergoing ablation for AF.