Transseptal puncture versus patent foramen ovale or atrial septal defect access for left atrial appendage closure

The feasibility and safety of combining atrial septal defect/patent foramen ovale and left atrial appendage closure: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction

Atrial Septal Defect/Patent Foramen Ovale (ASD/PFO) occlusion is performed to prevent paradoxical embolism and reduce the risk of recurrent ischemic stroke. Left atrial appendage (LAA) closure is used as an alternative to medical therapy of non-valvular atrial fibrillation for prevention of stroke. Multiple studies have examined performing LAA and ASD/PFO occlusion. However, the feasibility and safety of combined occlusion of the left atrial appendage and ASD/PFO are not clear, furthermore, these studies are limited by their small sample sizes and retrospective analysis. In this study, we aimed to systematically review and meta-analyze the feasibility and safety of combining left atrial appendage and ASD/PFO closure.

Methods

PubMed, Web of Science, CNKI, Cochrane Library, Embase, and WanFang database were searched up to April 2022 to identify peer-reviewed human studies on assessing the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of combining left atrial appendage and ASD/PFO closure. The primary outcome was calculated: procedural feasibility outcome and procedural safety outcome.

Results

A total of 10 articles, including 340 patients from multiple countries, were included in the analysis. The principal findings of our study are: compared with single LAA closure, (i) combining PFO/ASD occlusion and LAA closure had similar procedural success proportion (98.43%, 95% CI: 96.67-100.00%), (ii) similar safety event incidences developed (1.67%, 95% CI: 0.24-3.92%), subgroup analyzed safety event incidences in death was 0.00 (95% CI: 0.00-0.33%), cardiac tamponade was 0.87% (95% CI: 0.00-2.77%), device embolization was 0.00 (95% CI: 0.00-0.60%), major bleeding was 0.00 (95% CI: 0.00-0.33%), stroke was 0.00 (95% CI: 0.00-0.02%).

Conclusion

Although this systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrate the technical feasibility and safety of combining closure of PFO/ASD and LAA, further studies of sufficient sample size, long-term follow-up, and rigor endpoint criteria are yet needed to fully evaluate this combination procedure for its role in clinical outcomes.

A newly designed disk-lobe occluder with isogenous barbs for left atrial appendage closure: Initial multicenter experience

Background

Although the implant success rate of left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) has increased and complications have decreased over time, there are still anatomically and technically complicated cases where novel LAA occluders may simplify the procedure and thus might potentially improve the clinical outcome.

Objectives

This study aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of the newly designed device with isogenous barbs in LAAC.

Methods

Eight centers in China participated in this prospective study from July 2016 to April 2018. Peri- and post-procedural safety and efficacy were evaluated through scheduled follow-ups and transesophageal echocardiography (TEE).

Results

A total of 175 patients with a mean age of 68.4 ± 9.2 years old, a mean CHA₂DS₂-VASc score of 4.7 ± 1.8, and a mean HAS-BLED score of 3.2 ± 1.3, were included. The device was successfully implanted in 173 patients (98.9%). The device size ranged from 18 to 34 mm. Clinically relevant pericardial effusion (PEF) in the perioperative period, occurred in 3 patients (1.7%). TEE follow-up was available in 167 (96.5%) patients at 12-month. During follow-up, 9 patients suffered serious adverse event: 4 death (2.3%), 1 ischemic stroke (0.6%), and 2 gastro-intestinal bleeding (1.2%) and 2 device-related thrombus (DRT) (1.2%). Estimated annual thromboembolism rate reduced by 90% and estimated annual major bleeding rate reduced by 81% after LAAC with the newly designed device.

Conclusion

The newly designed device with isogenous barbs for LAAC could be performed effectively with a low incidence of adverse events and a high incidence of anatomic closure.

Closure of Iatrogenic Atrial Septal Defect After Placement of Left Atrial Appendage Closure Device

An 86-year-old woman experienced hypoxia with right-to-left flow across an iatrogenic atrial septal defect after deployment of a left atrial appendage closure device. Emergent closure of the defect was performed with an atrial septal occluder device with resolution of hypoxia. (Level of Difficulty: Intermediate.).

Amplatzer left atrial appendage closure: Single versus combined procedures

OBJECTIVES

This study compares procedural and late clinical outcomes of left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) with Amplatzer devices as a single versus a combined procedure with other structural or coronary interventions.

BACKGROUND

Multiple cardiac conditions are frequent among elderly patients and invite simultaneous treatment to ensure a favorable patient outcomes.

METHODS

559 consecutive patients (73.3 ± 11.1 years) underwent LAAC with Amplatzer devices at two centres (Bern and Zurich university hospitals, Switzerland) either as a single procedure or combined with other interventions. The primary safety endpoint was a composite of major peri-procedural complications and major bleeding at follow-up, the primary efficacy endpoint included stroke, systemic embolism, and cardiovascular/unexplained death. All event rates are reported per 100 patient-years.

RESULTS

In 263 single and 296 combined procedures with percutaneous coronary interventions (47.6%), closure of an atrial septal defect (8.4%) or a patent foramen ovale (36.5%), transcatheter aortic valve implantation (10.1%), mitral clipping (4.1%), atrial fibrillation ablation (8.8%), or another procedure (3.0%) were analyzed. Device success (96.6% [single] vs. 99.0% [combined], p = .08) did not differ between the groups. After a mean follow-up of 2.6 ± 1.5 vs. 2.5 ± 1.5 years and a total of 1,422 patient-years, the primary efficacy (40/677, 5.9% [single] vs. 37/745, 5.0% [combined]; HR, 1.2, 95% CI, 0.8-1.9, p = .44), as well as the primary safety endpoint (25/677, 3.7% vs 28/745, 3.8%; HR, 1.0, 95% CI, 0.6-1.8, p = .89) were comparable.

CONCLUSIONS

LAAC with Amplatzer devices combined with structural, coronary, and electrophysiological procedures offers procedural feasibility and safety, as well as long-term efficacy.

Left atrial appendage and atrial septal occlusion in elderly patients with atrial septal defect and atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Elderly patients with atrial septal defect (ASD) often present with chronic atrial fibrillation and large left to right shunt. This study reports the experience of left atrial appendage (LAA) and ASD closure in patients with significant ASD and chronic atrial fibrillation.

METHODS

We report six consecutive elderly patients with chronic atrial fibrillation and significant ASD who underwent LAA and fenestrated ASD closure from January 1, 2014 until December 31, 2019. All periprocedural and long-term (>1 year) outcomes were reported.

RESULTS

Six patients (male: 33.3%; mean age: 66.8 ± 3.3 years) were included. Mean CHADS₂ , CHA₂ DS₂ -VAS_c , and HAS-BLED scores were 2.33 ± 0.82, 3.83 ± 0.75, and 1.83 ± 0.75. Four patients underwent simultaneous procedure, while two patients underwent a staged procedure. Procedural success was achieved in all patients. Total occlusion was achieved during LAA occlusion without device embolization prior to ASD closure. Patients who underwent simultaneous procedure had a shorter total hospital stay and lower total hospital stay. During a follow-up period of 32.8 ± 19.4 months, both the devices were well seated. No device-related thrombosis or erosion reported. All patients remained in atrial fibrillation. No patients experienced any thromboembolic stroke or transient ischemic attack.

CONCLUSIONS

LAA and ASD closure is feasible and can be safely performed in the same seating in elderly patients with a significant ASD.