Safety of left atrial appendage closure in heart failure patients

Left atrial appendage occlusion in patients with cancer

Atrial fibrillation (AF) and malignancy share a complex relationship, significantly complicating patient management. Patients with cancer, particularly those with lung, gastrointestinal, genitourinary, and hematologic malignancies, are at increased risk of AF due to cancer-related hypercoagulability, proinflammatory cytokines, and treatment-related factors. This population faces unique thrombotic and bleeding risks, challenging standard management approaches. Anticoagulation is often complicated by drug-drug interactions with cancer therapies and heightened bleeding risks, including thrombocytopenia and coagulopathy. Left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) offers an alternative stroke prevention strategy for patients unable to tolerate long-term anticoagulation. By isolating the left atrial appendage, LAAO reduces thromboembolic risk while minimizing bleeding complications. Indications include patients with elevated stroke risk with contraindications to anticoagulation due to nonreversible causes, such as recurrent bleeding or significant drug interactions. Surgical LAAO may also be considered during cardiac surgery in patients with AF and high thromboembolic risk, with previous studies showing reduced risk of thromboembolic complications. Outcomes of LAAO in cancer patients are generally favorable, with studies showing comparable stroke rates, bleeding risks, and mortality to non-cancer populations. However, malignancy-specific complications, such as device-related thrombus, require further investigation. LAAO provides a promising option for stroke prevention in this complex population, but further research is needed to refine patient selection and optimize outcomes.

Left Atrial Appendage Closure With Catheter Ablation vs. Ablation Alone on Outcomes of Atrial Fibrillation in Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

Background Combining left atrial appendage closure with catheter ablation (LAACCA) has been proposed as a potential approach to improving outcomes by simultaneously addressing arrhythmia and reducing stroke risk. This study compares the in-hospital outcomes of LAACCA vs. catheter ablation (CA) alone for atrial fibrillation (AFib) in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Methods We analyzed adult hospitalizations with HFrEF and AFib who underwent LAACCA or CA alone from the 2016-2020 nationwide inpatient sample using validated ICD-10 codes. Propensity score matching, accounting for patient-, hospital-, and procedure-level covariates, illness severity, and baseline risk of mortality, was used to alleviate bias in nonrandomized treatment assignments. The primary endpoints included all-cause in-hospital mortality, hospital stay, and hospitalization costs. Secondary endpoints included postprocedural complication rates. Prolonged hospitalization was defined as hospital stay in the top decile of hospital stay in each cohort. All statistical analyses in the study were based on weighted hospital data. Results About 233,865 HFrEF patients were hospitalized for AFib. Approximately 27,945 (11.9%) underwent LAACCA, while 205,920 (88.1%) underwent CA only. The cohort comprised mostly males (151,077; 64.6%) (mean age: 67.4; SD: 4.3). The propensity score-matched cohort comprised 18,195 LAACCAs and 18,195 CAs; all covariate imbalances were alleviated. LAACCA was associated with a higher rate of prolonged hospital stay (7.6 vs 5.6 days; P<0.001), a higher mortality rate (209 (1.1%) vs. 160 (0.9%); P=0.011), and higher mean hospital costs ($289,960 vs. $183,932; P<0.001) compared with CA alone. LAACCA was associated with a higher incidence of acute myocardial ischemia (528 (2.9%) vs. 455 (2.5%); P=0.013), complete atrioventricular block (1,200 (6.6%) vs. 892 (4.9%); P=0.004), need for implantable device therapy (1,510 (8.3%) vs. 1,348 (7.4%); P=0.017), pneumothorax (328 (1.8%) vs. 91 (0.5%); P<0.0001), hemothorax (200 (1.1%) vs. 127 (0.7%); P<0.0001), pneumonia (983 (5.4%) vs. 546 (3.0%); P<0.0001), vascular access complications (346 (1.9%) vs. 255 (1.4%); P=0.046), and septicemia (309 (1.7%) vs. 182 (1.0%); P<0.001). CA was associated with a greater incidence of cardiac tamponade (237 (1.3%) vs. 382 (2.1%); P=0.010) and femoral artery pseudoaneurysm (364 (0.2%) vs. 91 (0.5%); P<0.001). Conclusion LAACCA was correlated with higher mortality odds compared to CA alone for atrial fibrillation in HFrEF.

Correlations Between Plasma BNP Level and Risk of Thrombotic-Hemorrhagic Events After Left Atrial Appendage Closure

Background: Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) reduces the incidence of stroke/bleeding events in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation, high risk of stroke, and contraindication in continuing anticoagulation therapy. Of them, patients with heart failure may remain at high risk of these events after LAAC. Method: Patients who underwent LAAC and were listed for the multi-center, prospectively collected OCEAN-LAAC registry, were eligible. Of them, individuals without baseline plasma B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) levels and those dependent on hemodialysis were excluded. The prognostic impact of baseline plasma BNP levels on the incidence of death or stroke/bleeding events after LAAC was evaluated. Results: A total of 937 patients (median 78 years, 596 men) were included. The LAAC device was successfully implanted in 934 (98%) patients. Over the 366 (251, 436) days after the LAAC, 148 patients encountered a primary outcome. The common logarithm of baseline plasma BNP was independently associated with the primary outcome with an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.46 (95% confidence interval 1.06-2.18, p = 0.043). A calculated cutoff of 2.12 (equivalent to 133 pg/mL of plasma BNP level) significantly stratified the cumulative incidence of the primary outcome (29% vs. 21% for 2 years, p = 0.004). Conclusions: Using prospectively collected large-scale multi-center Japanese registry data, we demonstrated that a baseline higher plasma BNP level was independently associated with a higher incidence of stroke/bleeding events and mortality after LAAC. Further studies are warranted to understand the optimal therapeutic strategy for LAAC candidates with elevated baseline plasma BNP levels.

Safety and feasibility of atrial fibrillation ablation after left atrial appendage closure: A single-center experience of the left atrial appendage closure first strategy

BACKGROUND

Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) who are not suitable for long-term anticoagulant therapy undergo percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC). The safety and feasibility of left atrial catheter ablation (CA) procedures after LAAC remain unclear. This study aimed to clarify the feasibility and safety of CA after LAAC, including in the early phase within 180 days.

METHODS

Characteristics and clinical outcomes of 46 patients with AF who had undergone both CA and LAAC within 2 years (mean age, 72 years; 29 men) were compared between those who had undergone CA-first (31 patients) and LAAC-first (15 patients).

RESULTS

The mean CHA₂DS₂-VASc and HAS-BLED scores were 4.8 and 3.3 points, respectively. The LAAC-first strategy was often used in patients with prior major bleeding and LAA thrombosis or sludge. In the LAAC-first group, the mean duration between both procedures was 212 days, and all LAAC-first patients, including seven patients in the early phase, could undergo CA without LAAC device-related complications; moreover, no cardiovascular adverse events were reported after both procedures (mean periods: 420 days). After CA post-LAAC, no device-related adverse events (device-related thrombosis, new peri-device leak appearance, peri-device leak increase, or device dislodgement) were observed, whereas, after LAAC post-CA, 3 new peri-device leak appearance events and 1 peri-device leak increase event were observed, especially patients who underwent LAAC in the early phase post-CA.

CONCLUSION

Based on single-center experience, left atrial CA in the presence of an LAAC device implanted including the early phase was safe and feasible.

Interaction of heart failure and stroke: A clinical consensus statement of the ESC Council on Stroke, the Heart Failure Association (HFA) and the ESC Working Group on Thrombosis

Heart failure (HF) is a major disease in our society that often presents with multiple comorbidities with mutual interaction and aggravation. The comorbidity of HF and stroke is a high risk condition that requires particular attention to ensure early detection of complications, efficient diagnostic workup, close monitoring, and consequent treatment of the patient. The bi-directional interaction between the heart and the brain is inherent in the pathophysiology of HF where HF may be causal for acute cerebral injury, and - in turn - acute cerebral injury may induce or aggravate HF via imbalanced neural and neurovegetative control of cardiovascular regulation. The present document represents the consensus view of the ESC Council on Stroke, the Heart Failure Association and the ESC Working Group on Thrombosis to summarize current insights on pathophysiological interactions of the heart and the brain in the comorbidity of HF and stroke. Principal aspects of diagnostic workup, pathophysiological mechanisms, complications, clinical management in acute conditions and in long-term care of patients with the comorbidity are presented and state-of-the-art clinical management and current evidence from clinical trials is discussed. Beside the physicians perspective, also the patients values and preferences are taken into account. Interdisciplinary cooperation of cardiologists, stroke specialists, other specialists and primary care physicians is pivotal to ensure optimal treatment in acute events and in continued long-term treatment of these patients. Key consensus statements are presented in a concise overview on mechanistic insights, diagnostic workup, prevention and treatment to inform clinical acute and continued care of patients with the comorbidity of HF and stroke.