Long‐term clinical outcomes from real‐world experience of left atrial appendage exclusion with LARIAT device

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.

Catheter based left atrial appendage closure in-hospital outcomes in Germany from 2016 to 2020

BACKGROUND

New and refined catheter based left atrial appendage (LAA) closure devices have been introduced in the past decade. The procedure can be performed using either an endocardial occlusion device or an epicardial loop stitch. We aimed to analyzed recent procedural safety.

METHODS

Catheter based LAA closures were identified in a complete nationwide German dataset via ICD and OPS codes from 2016 to 2020.

RESULTS

From 2016 to 2020, 28,039 endocardial and 213 epicardial occlusions were performed. Numbers of endocardial procedures increased from 5259 in 2016 to 5917 in 2020 (p = 0.020) in 387 centers with shifting of patients' characteristics towards older age (β = 0.29, p < 0.001), more heart failure (β = 1.01, p < 0.001) and renal disease (β = 0.67, p = 0.001) and without a significant trend for in-hospital safety except more bleeding (β = 0.12, p = 0.05). In-hospital major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) or pericardial puncture were independent on center procedure numbers. The loop stitch procedure was performed in 15 centers. Patients were younger (76.17 ± 8.16 vs. 73.16 ± 8.99, p < 0.001) and had a lower comorbidity index (2.29 ± 1.93 vs. 1.92 ± 1.64, p = 0.005). Adjusted risk difference for pericardial effusion (8.04%; 95% CI 3.01-13.08%; p = 0.002) and pericardial puncture (6.60%; 95% CI 3.85-9.35%; p < 0.001) was higher for the loop stitch procedure, while risk of bleeding (- 1.85%; 95% CI - 3.01 to - 0.69%; p = 0.002), intracerebral bleeding (- 0.37%; 95% CI - 0.59 to - 0.15%; p = 0.001) and shock (- 1.41%; 95% CI - 2.44 to - 0.39%; p = 0.007) was lower. No significant difference was observed for in-hospital MACCE.

CONCLUSIONS

Endocardial occlusion was the major catheter based LAA closure procedure in Germany without improvements in in-hospital safety from 2016 to 2020. In-hospital MACCE was independent on endocardial LAAC center volumes. Conclusions on the comparison between the two procedure types must be made cautious as the LAA loop stitch occlusion was utilized limited in a minor number of centers. Catheter based left atrial appendage closure in-hospital outcomes in Germany from 2016 to 2020.

Management of oral anticoagulant therapy after intracranial hemorrhage in patients with atrial fibrillation

Intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) is considered a potentially severe complication of oral anticoagulants (OACs) and antiplatelet therapy (APT). Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) who survived ICH present both an increased ischemic and bleeding risk. Due to its lethality, initiating or reinitiating OACs in ICH survivors with AF is challenging. Since ICH recurrence may be life-threatening, patients who experience an ICH are often not treated with OACs, and thus remain at a higher risk of thromboembolic events. It is worthy of mention that subjects with a recent ICH and AF have been scarcely enrolled in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on ischemic stroke risk management in AF. Nevertheless, in observational studies, stroke incidence and mortality of patients with AF who survived ICH had been shown to be significantly reduced among those treated with OACs. However, the risk of hemorrhagic events, including recurrent ICH, was not necessarily increased, especially in patients with post-traumatic ICH. The optimal timing of anticoagulation initiation or restarting after an ICH in AF patients is also largely debated. Finally, the left atrial appendage occlusion option should be evaluated in AF patients with a very high risk of recurrent ICH. Overall, an interdisciplinary unit consisting of cardiologists, neurologists, neuroradiologists, neurosurgeons, patients, and their families should be involved in management decisions. According to available evidence, this review outlines the most appropriate anticoagulation strategies after an ICH that should be adopted to treat this neglected subset of patients.

Percutaneous Treatment Approaches in Atrial Fibrillation: Current Landscape and Future Perspectives

Atrial fibrillation (AF), the most common sustained arrhythmia in clinical practice, represents a major cause of morbidity and mortality, with an increasing prevalence. Pharmacologic treatment remains the cornerstone of its management through rhythm and rate control, as well as the prevention of thromboembolism with the use of oral anticoagulants. Recent progress in percutaneous interventional approaches have provided additional options in the therapeutic arsenal, however. The use of the different catheter ablation techniques can now lead to long arrhythmia-free intervals and significantly lower AF burden, thus reducing the rate of its complications. Particularly encouraging evidence is now available for patients with persistent AF or concomitant heart failure, situations in which catheter ablation could even be a first-line option. In the field of stroke prevention, targeting the left atrial appendage with percutaneous device implantation may reduce the risk of thromboembolism to lower rates than that predicted with conventional ischemic risk scores. Left atrial appendage occlusion through the approved Watchman or Amplatzer devices is a well-established, efficacious, and safe method, especially in high-ischemic and bleeding risk patients with contraindications for oral anticoagulation.

Metabolic Effects of the Left Atrial Appendage Exclusion (THE HEART HORMONE STUDY)

OBJECTIVE

The effect of epicardial LAA occlusion therapy on lipid and glucose metabolism in AF patients over the long term follow up is unclear.

METHODS

In a single-center prospective observational study, 60 patients with longstanding persistent AF with cardiovascular risk factors had undergone an epicardial exclusion procedure. Anthropometric parameters and glucose, glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), insulin, leptin, adiponectin, free fatty acids, beta-hydroxybutyrate, and total cholesterol levels were evaluated on fasting at baseline before the procedure and compared with levels at 24 hours, 7 days, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, and 24 months follow the procedure.

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients was 67.5 ± 8.1. Insulin levels significantly increased at 7 days, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months, and 24 months follow-up. The leptin levels showed a significant increase in 6 months, 12 months, and 24 months when compared to baseline. Whereas the adiponectin levels showed a significant decrease at 3 months, 6 months, 12 months, and 24 months when compared to baseline levels. In patients with the epicardial procedure, when compared to baseline, glucose, glycated hemoglobin, total cholesterol, and beta-hydroxybutyrate levels did not show any significant changes at baseline and 24 months follow up.

CONCLUSION

The epicardial exclusion ligation in AF patients was associated with significant changes in insulin, leptin, and adiponectin over long follow up. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Clinical Significance of the Left Atrial Appendage Orifice Area

Objective The left atrial appendage (LAA) is one of the major sources of cardiac thrombus formation. Three-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) made it possible to perform a detailed evaluation of the LAA morphologies. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical implications of the LAA orifice area. Methods A total of 149 patients who underwent TEE without significant valvular disease were studied. The LAA orifice area was measured using three-dimensional TEE. The patients were divided into two groups according to the LAA orifice area (large LAA orifice group, ≥median value, and small LAA orifice group). The clinical characteristics and echocardiographic findings were evaluated. Results The median LAA orifice area among all patients was 4.09 cm² (interquartile range 2.92-5.40). The large LAA orifice group were older (67.2±10.4 vs. 62.4±15.3 years, p=0.02), more often had hypertension (66.7% vs. 44.6%, p=0.007), and atrial fibrillation (70.7% vs. 39.2%, p<0.001) than the small LAA orifice group. Regarding the TEE findings, the LAA flow velocity was significantly lower (33.7±20.0 vs. 50.2±24.3, p<0.001) and spontaneous echo contrast was more often observed (21.3% vs. 8.1%, p=0.02) in the large LAA orifice group. Multivariate models demonstrated that atrial fibrillation was an independent predictor of the LAA orifice area. In the analysis of atrial fibrillation duration, the LAA orifice area tended to be larger as patients had a longer duration of atrial fibrillation. Conclusion Our findings indicated that a larger LAA orifice area was associated with the presence of atrial fibrillation and high thromboembolic risk based on TEE findings. A continuation of the atrial fibrillation rhythm might lead to the gradual expansion of the LAA orifice.

Safety and efficacy of left atrial appendage closure using an epicardial suture snaring device: Systematic review and current status

INTRODUCTION

The LARIAT epicardial suture snaring device has been fraught with technical challenges and procedural complications. Over time, technique modification and improved operator experience have helped overcome many of these challenges. METHODS AND RESULTS: Studies reporting left atrial appendage epicardial closure over a 12-year period from 2009 to 2020 were evaluated. The primary efficacy outcome evaluated was left atrial appendage closure with residual flow ≤1 mm. Safety outcomes evaluated were periprocedural and long term complications after device placement. Nine studies consisting of 1430 patients were included in this analysis, of which 1386 (97%) underwent successful device placement. The mean age was 69.3 years, with a mean CHADS₂ -VASC score of 3.78. Primary efficacy end point was achieved in 95.8% patients immediately after device placement, and in 92.8% patients on long term follow-up. Early procedural complications consisted of pericardial effusion 5.6%, cardiac perforation 2.7%, pericarditis 2.6%, and need for open heart surgery 1.5%. Long term complications consisted of all-cause mortality 2.3%, stroke 1.5%, and left atrial appendage thrombus 2.3%. Reduced complications were noted using micropuncture needles (2.20% vs. 10.14%; p < .0001), a longer duration pericardial drainage, and use of anti-inflammatory medications (1.58% vs. 8.4%). Oral anticoagulation use decreased from 44.7% to 22.9% post device implantation, and to 8.5% on last clinical follow up.

CONCLUSIONS

The LARIAT device is effective in epicardial closure of the left atrial appendage. Improvement in device techniques such as use of micropuncture needle, prophylactic colchicine, and maintenance of a pericardial drain have helped improve safety over time.

Why should cardiac surgeons occlude the left atrial appendage percutaneously?

OBJECTIVES

Percutaneous left atrial appendage (LAA) occlusion (LAAO) is a procedure dominated by cardiologists. The aim of our study was to present the results of percutaneous LAAO performed solely by cardiac surgeons.

METHODS

Two hundred twenty-three consecutive patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation underwent percutaneous LAAO in two cardiac surgery sites. In the first center, all 84 LAAO procedures were performed with the endocardial LAA occluders: 60 cases with the Amulet and 24 cases with the LAmbre. In the second center, all 139 LAAO procedures were performed with the LARIAT epicardial device.

RESULTS

The mean CHA₂ DS₂ -VASc-score was 3.7 ± 1.8 points, and mean HAS-BLED score was 3.6 ± 1.2 points. The procedure was successful in 97.3% of cases. Procedural or device-related adverse events were noted in 4.4% (n = 10) of cases: one periprocedural cardiac arrest, one aortic injury, one gastrointestinal bleeding, three cases of vascular access complications, and four cardiac tamponades. After a follow-up of 40.3 ± 17.3 months, 78.4% of patients were alive, with the annual mortality rate of 5.3%. Compared to the predicted risk, the observed incidence of thromboembolism was lower by 71%, and the bleeding incidence was lower by 69%.

CONCLUSIONS

Percutaneous LAAO procedures can be safely performed by cardiac surgeons, with no cardiological assistance. LAAO done by surgeons is safe and effective, and periprocedural and long-term outcomes are excellent. Cardiac surgeons should be trained in both types of LAAO: endocardial and epicardial.

Risks and Benefits of Removal of the Left Atrial Appendage

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In patients with atrial fibrillation who are unable to take novel oral anticoagulants for stroke prophylaxis due to bleeding risk or other contraindications, left atrial appendage (LAA) occlusion and exclusion devices have shown benefit. In this review, we highlight the risks and benefits associated with LAA removal.

RECENT FINDINGS

LAA, once considered a vestigial organ, has been shown to have physiological, anatomical, and arrhythmogenic properties. Device-related complications such as pericardial effusion, device embolization, device-related thrombus, while uncommon, are still present. With increased operator experience related to appendage occlusion, overall procedural complications have declined. Further refinements in device technology will help decrease complications. While benefits of appendage removal are plenty, procedural complications need to be weighed into the equation when making decisions regarding LAA occlusion.