Comparative Safety and Efficacy of Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion with the Watchman Device and Amplatzer Cardiac Plug: Results of the Russian National Registry

Comparative Profiles of the WATCHMAN™ and Amplatzer™ Cardiac Plug/Amplatzer™ Amulet™ Devices for Left Atrial Appendage Closure in Non-valvular Atrial Fibrillation: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a prevalent cardiac arrhythmia marked by irregular and frequent tachycardic rhythms in the atria, affecting 1%-2% of the general population. The WATCHMAN™ device from Boston Scientific (Marlborough, MA, USA) and the Amplatzer™ Amulet™ device from Abbott (Chicago, IL, USA) are two devices used globally for left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) in non-valvular AF. A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Elsevier's ScienceDirect literature databases to identify studies comparing the WATCHMAN™ procedure with Amulet™ device implantation for LAAC in patients with AF. The analyses were conducted using the random-effects model. A total of 20 studies were identified, with 18 falling into the category of observational studies and 2 being randomized controlled trials. A total of 6310 participants were included in this meta-analysis, with 3198 individuals (50.68%) assigned to the WATCHMAN™ procedure group and 3112 individuals (49.32%) allocated to the Amplatzer™ Cardiac Plug (ACP) group. The analysis revealed a higher risk of stroke associated with the WATCHMAN™ technique (relative risk [RR], 1.14), albeit without statistical significance. Conversely, the WATCHMAN™ approach led to a significantly lower risk of cardiac death (RR, 0.44; P = .04). Notably, the risks of all-cause mortality (RR, 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73-1.08; I 2 = 0%; P = .25) and major bleeding (RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.65-1.33; I 2 = 31%; P = .70) were clinically reduced with the WATCHMAN™ procedure, although statistical significance was not achieved. Compared to Amulet™ device implantation, WATCHMAN™ device implantation decreased the risk of cardiac mortality, while the risks of stroke, systemic embolism, all-cause mortality, and major bleeding were not statistically significant.

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.

Clinical efficacy and safety comparison of Watchman device versus ACP/Amulet device for percutaneous left atrial appendage closure in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: A study-level meta-analysis of clinical trials

Left atrial appendage occlusion is not inferior to oral anticoagulants in the prevention of stroke in several randomized controlled trials. However, the clinical efficacy and safety comparison of the Watchman and amplatzer cardiac plug (ACP)/Amulet devices for percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation was controversial. A database search was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Clinicaltrials.gov for trials that compared Watchman device vs ACP/Amulet device. The effective outcomes were stroke and systemic embolism. Safety outcomes were all-cause death, cardiovascular death, and major bleeding. Device-related complications included device-related thrombus (DRT), peri-device leaks (PDL > 5 mm). A total of 19 articles involving 6224 patients were included in the present study. The Watchman and ACP/Amulet groups comprised 3267 and 2957 patients, respectively. No statistically significant differences were detected in the stroke (odd ratio [OR]:1.24, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.92-1.67, p = .17, I²  = 0), systemic embolism (OR:1.10, 95% CI: 0.51-2.35, p = .81, I²  = 0%), all-cause death (OR:0.97, 95% CI: 0.80-1.18, p = .77, I²  = 1%), cardiogenic death (OR:0.99, 95% CI: 0.77-1.29, p = .96, I²  = 0%), major bleeding (OR:1.18, 95% CI: 0.98-1.43, p = .08, I²  = 25%). DRT (OR:1.48, 95% CI: 1.06-2.06, p = .02, I²  = 0%) and PDL > 5 mm (OR:2.57, 95% CI: 1.63-4.04, p < .0001, I²  = 0%) were significantly lower in ACP/Amulet group compared to Watchman group. The effective and safety outcomes were comparable between two groups. ACP/Amulet group had significantly lower rates of DRT and PDL > 5 mm than Watchman group.

Comparison between Amplatzer and Watchman left atrial appendage closure devices for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation：a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The Amplatzer and Watchman left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) devices are the two most frequently used devices for left atrial appendage closure devices worldwide. This meta-analysis aims to compare the safety and efficacy of the two devices.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library for studies up to 6 February 2022 that compared the safety and efficacy of the Amplatzer and Watchman devices.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies including 2,150 patients in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 2,526 patients in observational studies were included in the meta-analysis. Amplatzer device was associated with higher rates of major procedure-related complications (odds ratio [OR]: 1.99, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.45-2.74, P <0.0001) and device embolization (OR: 1.99, 95% CI: 1.09-3.64, P =0.03). However, Amplatzer device had lower rates of total peridevice leak (PDL) (OR:0.48, 95% CI: 0.27-0.83, P =0.009), significant PDL (OR:0.27, 95% CI: 0.12-0.57, P =0.0007) and device-related thrombus (DRT) (OR:0.67, 95% CI: 0.48-0.95, P =0.02). No statistical differences were observed between the two devices in other safety and efficacy endpoints, such as pericardial effusion, cardiac tamponade, air embolism, vascular complications, ischemic stroke/ transient ischemic attack (TIA), hemorrhagic stroke, all-cause death, cardiovascular death and bleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

Amplatzer LAAC device was associated with higher rates of major procedure-related complications, especially in device embolization. Watchman LAAC device was associated with higher rates of PDL and DRT. There were no significant differences between two devices in ischemic stroke/TIA, hemorrhagic stroke, all-cause death, cardiovascular death and bleeding.