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.

Single antiplatelet therapy after left atrial appendage closure in patients with AF: safety and effectiveness

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

The optimal antithrombotic strategy following left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) is poorly defined in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. We assessed the safety and effectiveness of a single antiplatelet treatment (SAPT) strategy after LAAC in a population at high risk of ischemic and bleeding events.

METHODS

This single-center, observational, prospective study included a consecutive cohort of patients who underwent LAAC using the LAmbre device (Lifetech Scientific, China) and who were discharged with SAPT. The primary outcome was a composite of stroke, systemic embolism, and device-related thrombosis during follow-up. Secondary endpoints were cardiovascular mortality and major bleeding events (BARC ≥3a). Clinical follow-up was performed at 1, 6, and 12 months and subsequently on an annual basis. Transesophageal echocardiography was performed at 1 and 12 months of follow-up.

RESULTS

The study comprised 74 patients. The median age was 77 [72-83] years and 43% were women. The cohort exhibited a high prevalence of comorbidities and cardiovascular risk factors. The median CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED scores were 4 [3-6] and 4 [4-5], respectively. The median length of follow-up was 2.5 years (188 patients-year). During follow-up, device-related thrombosis occurred in 3 patients (4%). Ischemic stroke occurred in 1 patient (1.3%, rate 0.5%/y), representing a 90.9% relative risk reduction compared with the risk predicted by CHA2DS2-VASc. Major bleeding events occurred in 12 patients (16%, 6.4%/y), with a relative risk reduction of 26.4% of that predicted by HAS-BLED. Cardiovascular-related mortality was observed in 2 patients (2.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

SAPT appears to be a safe and effective treatment following LAAC in patients at high ischemic and hemorrhagic risk. Further studies are needed to confirm our findings.

Should the Left Atrial Appendage Closure (LAAC) Technique Be the Main Form of Stroke Prevention in Patients With Long-Standing Persistent or Permanent Atrial Fibrillation?

Currently, oral anticoagulants are considered the gold standard for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation. Despite the efficacy of oral anticoagulants in reducing stroke incidence, patients are at risk of developing adverse reactions such as excessive bleeding and bruising, and can also have drug-drug interactions. In the early 2000s, a minimally invasive technique called the left atrial appendage closure emerged as an alternative for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation patients who could not tolerate oral anticoagulants. Despite the success of the left atrial appendage closure, practitioners still opt for medication therapy and are reluctant to advocate for this procedure. Given the adverse effects of oral anticoagulants, physicians should question if this is the appropriate method of stroke prevention in long-standing persistent or permanent atrial fibrillation patients. This case report investigates an 82-year-old Middle Eastern male in the United States with long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation who underwent a left atrial appendage closure due to recurrent bleeding on oral anticoagulants. In addition, there will be further discussion on the appropriate method of stroke prevention in similar patients.

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.

Reduced- or Half-Dose Rivaroxaban Following Left Atrial Appendage Closure: A Feasible Antithrombotic Therapy in Patients at High Risk of Bleeding?

The optimal antithrombotic strategy after percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) has not yet been established. The advisability of administering low-dose direct oral anticoagulation after LAAC to patients at high risk of bleeding is uncertain. Thus, in the present study, we evaluated the safety and effectiveness of reduced-(15 mg) or half-dose rivaroxaban (10 mg) versus warfarin regarding real-world risks of thromboembolism, bleeding, and device-related thrombosis (DRT) after LAAC. Patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation and HASBLED ≥ 3 who had undergone successful LAAC device implantation from October 2014 to April 2020 were screened and those who had received 10 mg or 15 mg rivaroxaban or warfarin therapy were enrolled. The patients were followed up 45 days and 6 months after LAAC to evaluate outcomes, including death, thromboembolism, major bleeding, and DRT. Of 457 patients with HASBLED ≥ 3 who had undergone LAAC, 115 had received warfarin and 342 rivaroxaban (15 mg: N = 164; 10 mg: N = 178). There were no significant differences in the incidence of thromboembolism or DRT between the warfarin and both doses of rivaroxaban groups (all p > 0.05). The incidence of major bleeding was significantly higher in the warfarin group than in either the reduced- or half-dose rivaroxaban groups (warfarin vs. rivaroxaban 15 mg: 2.6% vs. 0%, p = 0.030; warfarin vs. rivaroxaban 10 mg: 2.6% vs. 0%, p = 0.038). Either reduced- or half-dose rivaroxaban may be an effective and safe alternative to warfarin therapy in patients with LAAC and who are at high risk of bleeding, the risk of thromboembolism being similar and of major bleeding lower for both doses of rivaroxaban.

Looking for optimal antithrombotic strategy after transcatheter left atrial appendage occlusion: a real-world comparison of different antiplatelet regimens

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) has emerged as an effective procedure for the prevention of thromboembolic events in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with contraindications to oral anticoagulation. After the procedure, different antithrombotic regimens have been used, in order to prevent device-related thrombus and trying to minimize bleedings. The search for the optimal antithrombotic strategy is still ongoing. We sought to assess efficacy and safety of different antiplatelet therapy (APT) regimens.

METHODS

We enrolled non-randomized consecutive patients who underwent LAAO at the University Hospital of Parma between 2010 and 2021. Three study groups were identified according to post-procedural APT: long (>1, ≤12 months)-dual APT (DAPT), short (≤ 1 month)-DAPT, lifelong single APT (SAPT). The choice of the APT was left to multidisciplinary team evaluation. The incidence of the primary outcome, a composite of any ischemic or hemorrhagic event, was assessed at follow-up.

RESULTS

We enrolled a total of 130 patients. Technical success was achieved in 123 (94.6%) patients. After LAAO, 39 [31.7%] patients were discharged on short-DAPT, 35 [28.5%] on long-DAPT and 49 [39.8%] on SAPT. After a median follow-up of 32 months, short-DAPT group had a significantly lower occurrence of the primary outcome (3 [7.7%] vs. 7 [20.0%] in long-DAPT vs. 14 [28.6%] in SAPT, p = 0.049], mainly driven by a lower occurrence of the bleeding endpoint (0 vs. 4 [11.4%] in long-DAPT vs. 9 [18.4%] in SAPT, p = 0.020). Finally, comparison of the Kaplan-Meier curves showed that short-DAPT group had a higher primary endpoint-free survival [p = 0.015] compared to the other groups.

CONCLUSION

Post-procedural short-DAPT strategy was associated with better outcomes, mainly driven by reduction of major bleedings.

Influence of severe anemia on procedural safety and one-year outcome after left atrial appendage closure: Insights from a very high-risk cohort

Introduction

Patients undergoing left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) are often severly anemic and close to the transfusion threshold. The aim was to investigate the prevalence of severe anemia in this cohort and if procedural safety is compromised compared with non-anemic patients.

Methods and results

Comparison of severly anemic patients (Hb < 80 g/l) vs. non-severly anemic patients in the prospective, multicentre observational LAARGE registry of patients undergoing LAAC. A total of 638 patients (anemia 22.3% vs non-anemic 77.7%) were included. Anemic patients were older (77.1 years ± 7.9 vs 75.6 years ± 7.9, p = 0.014), had more comorbidities, higher CHA2DS2-VASc (4.8 vs 4.4, p = 0.017) and higher HAS-BLED (4.3 vs 3.8, p < 0.001) scores. Implant success was not influenced by anemia (99.3% vs 97.2%). Severe in-hospital (0.7% vs 5.6%, p = 0.01) and overall complications (8.5% vs 13.7%, p = 0.11) were less common in patients with anemia, driven by fewer pericardial effusions. Mortality was higher in anemic patients and associated with an increased hazard ratio, albeit not significantly (16.0% vs 10.3%, HR 1.61 (95%-CI: 0.97–2.67), p = 0.06). In the one-year follow-up, composite outcome of death, stroke or systemic embolism occurred in 22/142 anemic and in 54/496 non-anemic patients with an adjusted HR of 1.04 (95%-CI 0.62–1.73, p = 0.89).

Conclusion

Severe anemia close to the transfusion threshold is common in patients undergoing LAAC. However, this does not influence in-hospital complications or implant success. One-year mortality is higher in anemic patients, mainly driven by co-morbidities.

Incidence and clinical impact of major bleeding following left atrial appendage occlusion: insights from the Amplatzer Amulet Observational Post-Market Study

BACKGROUND

Major bleeding (MB) events are independent predictors of mortality after cardiac interventional procedures. The clinical relevance of MB following left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) remains unclear.

AIMS

This study aimed to investigate the incidence and clinical impact of MB after LAAO in a real-world population at high risk for bleeding and contraindicated to anticoagulation.

METHODS

The two-year results of the Amplatzer Amulet Observational Post-Market Study were analysed. An independent committee adjudicated MBs according to the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium scale. Cox proportional hazards regression identified variables associated with MB events and mortality.

RESULTS

The MB rate was 7.2%/year, with a rate of 10.1%/year during year one, decreasing to 4.0%/year over year two. The most common bleeding location was gastrointestinal, accounting for 48% of MBs. Pre-LAAO MB was associated with an increased risk for post-LAAO MB (HR 2.34, 95% CI: 1.37-3.99). The occurrence of post-LAAO MB was associated with increased mortality (37.3% vs 12.7%; p<0.0001), driven mainly by events occurring beyond the periprocedural period. The annualised rate of ischaemic stroke or TIA was similar in patients with and without MB (2.3% vs 3.3%; p=0.446). MB post LAAO was a strong independent predictor of mortality (HR 3.07, 95% CI: 2.15-4.40).

CONCLUSIONS

In real-world patients at high bleeding risk, MB following LAAO was not uncommon and associated with a significant increase in mortality, without increasing the risk of stroke. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02447081. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02447081.

Antithrombotic Therapy in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Interventions for Structural Heart Disease

Contemporary evidence supports device-based transcatheter interventions for the management of patients with structural heart disease. These procedures, which include aortic valve implantation, mitral or tricuspid valve repair/implantation, left atrial appendage occlusion, and patent foramen ovale closure, profoundly differ with respect to clinical indications and procedural aspects. Yet, patients undergoing transcatheter cardiac interventions require antithrombotic therapy before, during, or after the procedure to prevent thromboembolic events. However, these therapies are associated with an increased risk of bleeding complications. To date, challenges and controversies exist regarding balancing the risk of thrombotic and bleeding complications in these patients such that the optimal antithrombotic regimens to adopt in each specific procedure is still unclear. In this review, we summarize current evidence on antithrombotic therapies for device-based transcatheter interventions targeting structural heart disease and emphasize the importance of a tailored approach in these patients.

Analysis of outcome of 6-month readmissions after percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion

OBJECTIVE

Percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) is an alternative strategy for prevention of thromboembolic events in patients with atrial fibrillation and unsuitable for long-term oral anticoagulation. The study aimed to evaluate the causes and timing of readmissions within 6 months following percutaneous LAAO in a real-world setting.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of percutaneous LAAO performed in the USA between January and June of 2016-2018 using the Nationwide Readmissions Database.

RESULTS

Overall, 12 446 patients who underwent LAAO were included in the analyses and 3477 patients (28%) were readmitted within 6 months following the interventions. Readmitted patients were more often women (p=0.001). The index hospitalisation was characterised by longer duration of hospital stay (p<0.001) and complicated with acute kidney injury (p<0.001) among readmitted patients compared with those without readmissions. Readmissions within 6 months following the index intervention were mainly due to heart failure (13%) and gastrointestinal bleeding (12%). Characteristics associated with readmissions due to heart failure included previously known heart failure (HR 2.39; 95% CI 1.70 to 3.37), valvular heart disease (HR 1.39; 95% CI 1.05 to 1.84) and chronic kidney disease (HR 1.42; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.94). Readmissions due to gastrointestinal bleeding were associated with diabetes mellitus (HR 1.78; 95% CI 1.25 to 2.53), chronic kidney disease (HR 1.86; 95% CI 1.23 to 2.81) and previous anaemia (HR 2.41; 95% CI 1.54 to 3.77).

CONCLUSIONS

After percutaneous LAAO, over a quarter of the patients in the USA required rehospitalisation within 6 months, mainly due to heart failure and gastrointestinal bleeding.

What Does the Future Hold?: Ideal Device, Newer Devices, and More

Please verify if "pigtail guided" should be "pigtail catheter-guided": Recent design changes for left atrial appendage (LAA) closure devices have led to significant improvement by facilitating the procedural workflow (no need for pigtail guided LAA intubation), moving the workspace from distal LAA to the landing zone (closed distal end design), and improving device stability (different anchor design). The availability of different device types (plug vs disc-lobe design) offers an option to tailor a device type to a patient's anatomy; thereby, sealing results have improved substantially. The issue of device-related thrombus has not been resolved and deserves future research, with the goal of eliminating postprocedural antithrombotic medication without increasing risk for stroke.

Safety and Efficacy of Single Versus Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion

The optimal antiplatelet strategy after left atrial appendage (LAA) occlusion able to protect from device-related thrombosis, paying the lowest price in terms of bleeding increase, is unclear. In a real-world, observational study we performed a head-to-head comparison of single versus dual antiplatelet therapy (SAPT vs DAPT) in patients who underwent LAA occlusion. We included 610 consecutive patients, stratified according to the type of post-procedural antiplatelet therapy (280 on SAPT and 330 on DAPT). Primary outcome measure was the incidence of the net composite end point including Bleeding Academic Research Consortium classification 3-5 bleeding, major adverse cardiovascular events or device-related thrombosis at 1-year follow-up. The use of SAPT compared with DAPT was associated with similar incidence of the primary net composite end point (9.3% vs 12.7% p = 0.22), with an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 0.69, 95% confidence interval 0.41 to 1.15; p = 0.15) at multivariate analysis. However, SAPT significantly reduced Bleeding Academic Research Consortium classification 3-5 bleeding (2.9% vs 6.7%, p = 0.038; adjusted HR 0.37, 0.16 to 0.88; p = 0.024). The occurrence of ischemic events (major adverse cardiovascular events or device-related thrombosis) was not significantly different between the 2treatment strategies (7.8% vs 7.4%; adjusted HR 1.34, 0.70 to 2.55; p = 0.38). In patients who underwent LAA occlusion, post-procedural use of SAPT instead of DAPT was associated with reduction of bleeding complications, with no significant increase in the risk of thrombotic events. These hypothesis-generating findings should be confirmed in a specific, randomized study.

Thromboembolism after electrical isolation of the left atrial appendage: a new indication for interventional closure?

AIMS

Left atrial appendage electrical isolation (LAAI) may improve the rhythm outcome in selected patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Controversy exists if LAAI is associated with an increased rate of thromboembolic complications. We sought to assess the feasibility, efficacy, and safety of interventional left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) in comparison to oral anticoagulation (OAC) after electrical LAAI.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Weeks after index LAAI using the cryoballoon or a linear maze like ablation strategy patients' left atrial appendage was invasively remapped. In case of persistent LAAI, LAAC was performed. Patients who refused invasive remapping continued OAC. The primary endpoint was composed of any stroke or systemic embolism (SE) and the occurrence of intracardiac thrombus. Secondary endpoints included stroke/SE, major bleeding, and all-cause death. Of 166 patients (51% female; mean age 70 ± 8 years; mean CHAD2S2VASc score 3.4 ± 1.8) after LAAI, 94 patients received LAAC (LAAC group) and 72 continued OAC (no LAAC). After LAAC, 83% of patients received dual antiplatelet therapy for 6 weeks and aspirin thereafter. During a mean follow-up of 778 ± 630 days, 5 and 11 primary endpoint events were observed in the LAAC and no LAAC group, respectively [hazard ratio (HR) 0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10-0.75; P = 0.010]. The calculated annual thromboembolic event rates were 6.9% (no LAAC) and 2.3% (LAAC), respectively. Left atrial appendage closure significantly reduced the incidence of stroke and SE (HR 0.31, CI 0.1-0.98; P = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

After electrical LAAI for rhythm control in AF patients, interventional LAAC was associated with fewer thromboembolic complications when compared with OAC.

Propensity-matched comparison of antiplatelet versus anticoagulant after left atrial appendage closure with the Watchman

BACKGROUND

Optimal antithrombotic therapy following left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) with the Watchman occluder remains uncertain. This study retrospectively compared clinical outcomes of a 3-month dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT group) and a protocol of anticoagulation plus aspirin for 45 days followed by DAPT for 6 months (ACT group) after LAAC with the Watchman device.

METHODS

Of two Watchman registries (Coburg and Lichtenfels hospitals, Germany), 220 and 304 consecutive patients with successful LAAC were included. Patients in Coburg hospital received DAPT while they received ACT in Lichtenfels. After a 1:1 propensity score matching, 174 (DAPT) versus 174 (ACT) patients were compared by use of the primary efficacy endpoint of thromboembolic events and cardiovascular/unexplained death, the primary safety endpoint of nonprocedural related major bleeding events at follow-up, and the combined hazard endpoint, a composite of all above-mentioned hazards.

RESULTS

The mean age 77.5 ± 7.2 (DAPT) versus 77.3 ± 7.1 (ACT) years, CHA₂ DS₂ -VASc score 4.6 ± 1.5 versus 4.7 ± 1.6, and HAS-BLED score 3.3 ± 0.8 versus 3.3 ± 0.8 were similar. After 12 months, the clinical efficacy (13/174, 7.4% [DAPT] vs 11/174, 6.3% [ACT]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.38-1.86; P = .66) and safety (6/174, 3.4% vs 8/174, 4.5%; HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.29-2.56; P = .79) as well as the combined hazard endpoint (18/174, 10.3% vs 18/174, 10.3%; HR,1.01; 95% CI, 0.53-1.95; P = .97) were comparable.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests comparable efficacy and safety of 3-month DAPT versus 6 weeks ACT plus aspirin following LAAC with the Watchman.

Short-Term Antiplatelet Versus Anticoagulant Therapy After Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare bleeding, thromboembolic, device-related thrombus (DRT), and all-cause mortality events between patients treated with short-term oral anticoagulation (OAC) and those treated with short-term antiplatelet therapy (APT) following left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO).

BACKGROUND

Short-term OAC is recommended for patients following LAAO. However, in practice many patients receive APT rather than OAC because of excessive bleeding risk. However, the safety and efficacy of APT compared with OAC have been debated.

METHODS

A search was conducted of databases for studies comparing OAC with APT following LAAO. The outcomes of interest were all-cause stroke, major bleeding, DRT, and all-cause mortality. Noncomparative studies were pooled into a single study to generate comparisons of the studies' outcomes. Effects measure were pooled using the random-effect model.

RESULTS

A total of 83 studies with 12,326 patients (APT, n = 7,900; OAC, n = 4,151) were included. Mean CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED scores were 4.1 ± 1.6 and 3.0 ± 1.3, respectively. There were no significance differences between the APT and OAC groups with regard to stroke (risk ratio [RR]: 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.54 to 1.98; p = 0.91; I2 = 31%), major bleeding (RR: 1.12; 95% CI: 0.68 to 1.84; p = 0.65; I2 = 53%), DRT (RR: 1.33; 95% CI: 0.74 to 2.39; p = 0.33; I2 = 36%), and all-cause mortality (RR: 1.29; 95% CI: 0.40 to 4.09; p = 0.18; I2 = 36%). These findings persisted in multiple secondary analyses: 1) excluding studies that reported no events; 2) including comparative studies only; 3) excluding patients who were treated with single APT; and 4) removing one study at a time to assess the effect of each study on the overall effect size. There was also no difference in the studies' endpoints among patients who received different LAAO devices.

CONCLUSIONS

In a meta-analysis of observational data, there were no differences in the occurrence of stroke, major bleeding DRT, and all-cause mortality in patients treated with short-term OAC or APT following LAAO.

A left atrial appendage closure combined procedure review: Past, present, and future perspectives

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Atrial fibrillation (AF) represents the most common cardiac arrhythmia worldwide; it poses a great burden in terms of quality of life reduction and yearly stroke risk. Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) is a stroke prevention strategy that has been proven a viable alternative to antithrombotic regimens in nonvalvular AF patients. LAAC can be performed as a standalone procedure or alongside a concomitant AF transcatheter ablation, in a procedure known as "Combined procedure". Aim of this study is to summarize the scientific evidence backing this combined strategy.

METHODS

We reviewed the whole Medline indexed combined procedure literature, to summarize all the combined procedure study data.

RESULTS

Nine published studies regarding combined procedure were found. Data, aims, and scientific rationales were reported and commented.

CONCLUSION

LAA combined procedure appears to be a safe and effective procedure; a careful patient selection is necessary to maximize its benefit.

Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion for The Unmet Clinical Needs of Stroke Prevention in Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation

Oral anticoagulation is the dominant strategy for stroke prevention in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. However, lifelong oral anticoagulation is associated with major issues including inappropriate dosing, nonadherence, and adverse effects. Therefore, efforts have been made to develop site-specific therapy aimed to occlude the left atrial appendage, the anatomical site accountable for more than 90% of nonvalvular atrial fibrillation-related ischemic strokes. This review focuses on the growing literature to put into perspective the risk-balance ratio of left atrial appendage occlusion.

Antiplatelet therapy in valvular and structural heart disease interventions

Transcatheter interventions for valvular and structural heart diseases are rapidly expanding due to greater operators' experience and development of new generation devices associated with increased procedural safety. They represent the standard strategy for patients with prohibitive risk for open surgery. These procedures are associated with a significant occurrence of both thrombotic and bleeding complications, thus in this setting, even more than in other percutaneous procedures, the balance between thrombotic and bleeding risk is critical. This review describes the current data available on the antithrombotic management of patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), percutaneous mitral valve repair with the MitraClip system, percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion and percutaneous patent foramen ovale (PFO)/atrial septal defects (ASD) closure.

[Catheter-based atrial appendage closure-current data and future developments]

In Germany more than 1.6 million patients suffer from atrial fibrillation (AF). Within the next decades this number will substantially increase due to current demographic trends with the increasing average age of the population. When untreated, patients with atrial fibrillation have a five times higher risk for stroke as compared with a control cohort. A potent stroke prevention therapy reducing the risk of stroke by approximately 70-80% is primarily treatment with new oral anticoagulants (NOACs). The risk scores for stroke (CHA₂DS₂-VASc) and major bleeding (HAS-BLED) in patients with atrial fibrillation share common variables, so that patients with the highest stroke risk often carry a very high bleeding risk. A significant number of patients (ca. 20-30%) are, however, not eligible for long-term anticoagulation, e.g. because of a high bleeding risk. For this population there is an urgent need for alternative stroke prevention strategies, such as catheter-based percutaneous left atrial appendage closure. Current data about the efficiency and safety of this treatment as well as a discussion of ongoing recruitment for randomized studies are discussed in this review.

Antithrombotic strategies after interventional left atrial appendage closure: an update

INTRODUCTION

Interventional left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) has emerged as a valid alternative to oral anticoagulation (OAC) therapy for the prevention of ischemic stroke and systemic embolism in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF). Areas covered: Antithrombotic therapy following interventional LAAO is critical in balancing the risk of thromboembolism and bleeding during the endothelialization of the implanted devices. In this article, the most recent clinical trials are reviewed and the current real-world antithrombotic strategies following LAAO device implantation are discussed. Expert commentary: For patients eligible for OAC and receiving a Watchman device, the most solid scientific evidence exists for warfarin plus aspirin for 45 days followed by dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) for 6 months and a lifelong aspirin therapy. In real-world most patients are being treated with DAPT for 3-6 months. Alternatively, the Watchman was approved for 3 months of novel OAC (NOAC) therapy in conjunction with aspirin. For all other devices, DAPT for 1-6 months has been used in the vast majority of cases. Considering major bleeding as the predominant complication following LAAO, evidence suggests that short-term DAPT (6 weeks) or single antiplatelet therapy using aspirin may be a viable option.