Evaluation of Multimodality LAA Leak Closure Methods Following Incomplete Occlusion

Management strategies to prevent stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation and malignant left atrial appendage

BACKGROUND

Patients with atrial fibrillation and malignant left atrial appendage (LAA) may benefit from LAA closure (LAAC); however, evidence is limited.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine management strategies and clinical outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation and malignant LAA.

METHODS

Malignant LAA was defined as a history of ischemic stroke and/or evidence of LAA thrombus despite continuous oral anticoagulation (OAC) therapy (continuous for ≥3 weeks). We studied 80 patients with malignant LAA treated with LAAC. We compared these patients first against 44 patients with malignant LAA treated with OAC alone and second against 114 patients without malignant LAA who were treated with LAAC for conventional indications.

RESULTS

Among patients with malignant LAA (first comparison), those treated with LAAC had a higher 1-year cumulative incidence rate of ischemic stroke than did patients treated with OAC alone (6.3% vs 5.3%; log-rank, P = .09) whereas the difference in stroke risk while receiving OAC was comparable (2.7% vs 5.3%; log-rank, P = .84). Furthermore, all disabling stroke events in patients with malignant LAA treated with LAAC occurred only while not receiving OAC. Among patients treated with LAAC (second comparison), those with malignant LAA had a higher 1-year cumulative incidence rate of ischemic stroke (and ischemic stroke due to device-related thrombosis) than did those without malignant LAA (6.3% vs 2.2%; log-rank, P = .009 and 2.2% vs 0%; log-rank, P = .04, respectively). However, these differences in stroke risk were no longer significant while receiving OAC (2.7% vs 1.0%; log-rank, P = .11).

CONCLUSION

Combination performing LAAC and continuation of OAC may be options to prevent ischemic stroke in patients with high thromboembolic risk and malignant LAA.

Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation in patients with prior left atrial appendage occlusion device

BACKGROUND

The safety and efficacy of CA for AF and left-sided atrial arrhythmias (AA) in patients with left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) devices are lacking.

METHODS

This is a single-center retrospective registry that included all patients with prior LAAO who underwent catheter ablation for AF or left-sided atrial arrhythmia from January 2020-January 2023. The primary outcomes were procedure-related complications, device-related complications, AA recurrence, and stroke.

RESULTS

A total of 30 patients with prior LAAO were included in the analysis (mean age 75.1 ± 7.1 years old, 50% male, mean CHA2DS2-VASc score 4 ± 1.6, 46.7% paroxysmal AF, 73.3% had prior AF ablation, mean time to ablation 475 ± 365 days). 93.3% (n = 28) and 6.6% (n = 2) patients had ablation for AF (46.7% paroxysmal, 36.7% persistent, 10% long-standing persistent) and left-sided atrial tachycardia, respectively. 16.7% (n = 5) patients underwent ablation along the left atrial appendage ostium, and 3.3% (n = 1) underwent Vein of Marshall alcohol ablation. There were 3 (10%) peri-procedural complications (1 access hematoma and two pericardial effusions requiring intervention-none related to left atrial appendage ostium or alcohol ablation). During the mean follow-up of 440 ± 379 days, 40% (n = 12) patients had AA recurrence (91.6% AF, 8.3% atrial tachycardia), of which five patients needed repeat ablation, and two patients were readmitted for heart failure. There was no stroke or any device-related complications, including new peri-device leaks or device-related thrombosis in patients who had follow-up imaging studies (n = 11, 36.7%).

CONCLUSION

Catheter ablation for AF (including VoM alcohol ablation) in patients with prior LAAO devices is feasible and safe with favorable outcomes.

Left atrial appendage closure for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: current status and perspectives

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with an increased risk of stroke and systemic embolism, and the left atrial appendage (LAA) has been identified as a principal source of thromboembolism in these patients. While oral anticoagulation is the current standard of care, LAA closure (LAAC) emerges as an alternative or complementary treatment approach to reduce the risk of stroke or systemic embolism in patients with AF. Moderate-sized randomized clinical studies have provided data for the efficacy and safety of catheter-based LAAC, largely compared with vitamin K antagonists. LAA device iterations, advances in pre- and peri-procedural imaging, and implantation techniques continue to increase the efficacy and safety of LAAC. More data about efficacy and safety of LAAC have been collected, and several randomized clinical trials are currently underway to compare LAAC with best medical care (including non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants) in different clinical settings. Surgical LAAC in patients with AF undergoing cardiac surgery reduced the risk of stroke on background of anticoagulation therapy in the LAAOS III study. In this review, we describe the rapidly evolving field of LAAC and discuss recent clinical data, ongoing studies, open questions, and current limitations of LAAC.

Incidence, impact and predictors of residual device patency after left atrial appendage closure with the LACbes device

BACKGROUND

The residual device patency (RDP) after left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) with the LACbes device has not been specifically explored in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients. This study aims to explore the incidence, impact and predictors of RDP detected by cardiac computed tomography angiography (CCTA) post LAAC.

METHODS

AF patients implanted with the LACbes device were prospectively enrolled. CCTA device surveillance was performed at 3 months post-procedure. Major adverse events (MAEs), including stroke/transient ischemic attack, major bleeding and all-cause death, were evaluated.

RESULTS

Among 141 patients with CCTA surveillance, 56 (39.7%) showed no visible leak and 85 (60.3%) showed RDP. During the median follow-up of 443 [232, 706] days, the presence of RDP was not associated with an increased risk of MAEs (adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 4.07, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.49-34.24, p = 0.196), while peri-device leak (PDL) at the lobe was associated with heightened risks of MAEs (adjusted HR: 6.85, 95% CI: 1.62-28.89, p = 0.009). In patients with PDL at the lobe, antiplatelet after 6 months (HR: 0.20, 95% CI: 0.05-0.91, p = 0.038) was independent protective predictor of MAEs. Besides, current smoking (odds ratio [OR]: 7.52, 95% CI: 2.68-21.08, p < 0.001) and maximum diameter of LAA orifice (OR: 1.16, 95% CI: 1.00-1.34, p = 0.048) were independent predictors of PDL at the lobe.

CONCLUSIONS

Presence of PDL at the device lobe detected by CCTA at 3-month post LAAC with LACbes is associated with unfavorable prognosis in AF patients.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03788941.