Peridevice Leak Following Amplatzer Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion: Cardiac Computed Tomography Classification and Clinical Outcomes

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to investigate cardiac computed tomography (CT) and transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) peridevice leak (PDL) assessments, and the clinical relevance of PDL.

BACKGROUND

PDL assessment is integral during follow-up after left atrial appendage (LAA) occlusion. Comparative studies of TEE and cardiac CT are sparse, and the clinical relevance of PDL is uncertain.

METHODS

This was a single-center observational study of consecutive patients undergoing LAA occlusion with Amplatzer devices (Amplatzer Cardiac Plug/Amulet) between 2010 and 2018 (N = 415). Patients with both 8-week CT and TEE were included for analysis (n = 346). Images were analyzed by blinded investigators (K.K. and A.S.). PDL on cardiac CT was classified from grade 1 to 3, based on PDL at the device disc, device lobe, and LAA contrast patency. Primary clinical outcome was a composite of ischemic stroke, transient ischemic attack, systemic embolism, or all-cause death.

RESULTS

PDL was present in 110 patients (32%) by TEE, with 29 (8%) >3 mm. By cardiac CT, 210 patients (61%) had PDL at the disc, with contrast patency in 204 patients (59%). A grade 3 PDL (gap at disc, lobe, and LAA contrast patency) was present in 63 patients (18%). Bland-Altman analysis showed poor agreement between CT and TEE for leak sizing. CT and TEE detected PDL was not significantly associated with worse outcome, hazard ratio: 1.82 (95 % confidence interval: 0.95 to 3.50); p = 0.07 and hazard ratio: 1.43 (95% confidence interval: 0.74 to 2.76); p = 0.28, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

PDL occurrence is substantially higher with CT compared with TEE, with a large discrepancy between modalities in leak quantification. A novel CT-based classification is proposed, yet PDL was not associated with worse clinical outcome.

Interventional occlusion of left atrial appendage in patients with atrial fibrillation. Gender-related outcomes in the German LAARGE Registry

INTRODUCTION

Gender-based differences in atrial fibrillation have been identified, but limited data exist for patients undergoing left atrial appendage occluder (LAAO) implantation. This study reports gender-related periprocedural and 1-year outcomes of the prospective, multicenter German left atrial appendage occlusion registry (LAARGE).

METHODS

LAARGE enrolled 641 patients who were scheduled for LAAO implantation from July 2014 to January 2016 in 38 hospitals in Germany. The data collected included demographics, clinical characteristics, details of implantation, and outcome. Efficacy and safety at 1-year follow-up were assessed by the occurrence of thrombembolic and bleeding events, as well as mortality.

RESULTS

Of 638 patients undergoing LAAO implantation 38.9% were female and 61.1% male. Females were older (76.4 ± 8.2 [females] vs. 75.6 ± 7.7 [males], p = .042) and had a higher stroke risk (CHA₂ DS₂ -VASc score: 4.9 ± 1.5 vs. 4.3 ± 1.5, p < .001). In contrast, males suffered more often from coronary artery (33.1% vs. 53.8%, p < .001) and vascular disease (18.5% vs. 31.0%, p < .001). Technical success was high and similar for both genders (98.4% vs. 97.2%, p = .33). Severe periprocedural complications (6.9% vs. 3.1%, p = .032) occurred more often in females. At 1-year follow-up the rates of all-cause stroke (0.5% vs. 1.3%, p = .65) and severe bleeding (0.0% and 1.0%, p = .29) were low and comparable between the genders. Also, one-year all-cause mortality (9.2% vs. 13.1%, p = .14) did not differ significantly.

CONCLUSION

LAARGE documented in this elderly patient population undergoing LAAO implantation a higher rate of severe periprocedural complications in females. At 1-year follow-up similar efficacy and safety outcomes were observed for both genders.

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.

Initial and long-term antithrombotic therapy after left atrial appendage closure with the WATCHMAN

AIMS

Evidence regarding post-procedural antithrombotic regimen other than used in randomized trials assessing percutaneous left atrial appendage (LAA) closure is limited. The present work aimed to compare different antithrombotic strategies applied in the real-world EWOLUTION study.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 998 patients with successful WATCHMAN implantation were available for the present analysis. The composite ischaemic endpoint of stroke, transitory ischaemic attack, systemic embolism and device thrombus, and the bleeding endpoint defined as at least major bleeding were assessed during an initial period (from implant until first medication change) and long-term period (from first change up to 2 years). The antithrombotic medication chosen in the initial phase was dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in 60%, oral anticoagulation (OAC) in 27%, single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) in 7%, and no medication in 6%. In the second long-term phase, SAPT was used in 65%, DAPT in 23%, no therapy in 8%, and OAC in 4%. No significant differences were found between the groups regarding the ischaemic endpoint both in the initial period (Kaplan-Meier estimated rate 2.9% for DAPT vs. 4.3% for OAC vs. 3.9% for SAPT or no therapy) and in the second period (4.2% for SAPT vs. 1.8% for DAPT vs. 3.5% for no therapy). With respect to bleeding events, the only difference was found in the initial phase with a higher incidence in patients under SAPT or no therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Tailored antithrombotic treatment using even very reduced strategies such as SAPT or no therapy showed no significant differences regarding ischaemic complications after LAA closure.

The use of cardiac computed tomography angiography in the assessment of percutaneous left atrial appendage closure - Review and experts recommendations endorsed by the Société française d'imagerie cardiaque et vasculaire diagnostique et interventionnelle

Atrial fibrillation is the most common cause of arrhythmia which is responsible for over 15% of ischemic strokes, most of these being secondary to migration of a left atrial appendage (LAA) thrombus. In patient with contraindication to anticoagulant therapy, percutaneous closure system placement may be indicated. Cardiac computed tomography (CT) angiography plays a central role in the initial assessment as well as in the follow-up. The purpose of the pre-implantation cardiac CT angiography is to evaluate the anatomy of the LAA in order to select the most suitable prosthesis and check for any contraindication to device implantation. Image analysis is divided into four steps that include analysis of the approach; search for a thrombus in the LAA; investigation of the anatomy of the LAA (morphology of the LAA, dimensions of the LAA and choice of device) and cardiac and thoracic assessments. Follow-up involves CT examination to check for correct placement of the device and to detect any complications. On the basis of the results of currently available published research, a panel of experts has issued recommendations regarding cardiac CT angiography prior to percutaneous LAA closure device placement, which were further endorsed by the Société française d'imagerie cardiaque et vasculaire diagnostique et interventionnelle (SFICV).

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 closure for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: Final report from the French left atrial appendage closure registry

OBJECTIVES

The French left atrial appendage (LAA) closure registry (FLAAC) aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of LAA closure in daily practice.

BACKGROUND

LAA closure has emerged as an alternative for preventing thromboembolic events (TE) in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). Clinical data in this field remains limited and few investigator-initiated, real-world registries have been reported.

METHODS

This nationwide, prospective study was performed in 36 French centers. The primary endpoint was the TE rate after successful LAA closure.

RESULTS

The FLAAC registry included 816 patients with a mean age of 75.5 ± 0.3 years, mean follow-up of 16.0 ± 0.3 months, high TE (CHA₂ DS₂ -VASc score: 4.6 ± 0.1) and bleeding risks (HAS-BLED score: 3.2 ± 0.05) and common contraindications to long-term anticoagulation (95.7%). Procedure or device-related serious adverse events occurred in 49 (6.0%) patients. The annual rate of ischemic stroke/systemic embolism was 3.3% (2.4-4.6). This suggests a relative 57% reduction compared to the risk of stroke in historical NVAF populations without antithrombotic therapy. By multivariate analysis, history of TE was the only factor associated with stroke/systemic embolism during follow-up (HR, 3.3 [1.58-6.89], p = 0.001). The annual mortality rate was 10.2% (8.4-12.3). Most of the deaths were due to comorbidities or underlying cardiovascular diseases and unrelated to the device or to TE.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that LAA closure can be an option in patients with NVAF. Long-term follow-up mortality was high, mostly due to comorbidities and underlying cardiovascular diseases, highlighting the importance of multidisciplinary management after LAA closure.

REGISTRATION

NCT02252861.

Device-Related Thrombus After Left Atrial Appendage Closure: Data on Thrombus Characteristics, Treatment Strategies, and Clinical Outcomes From the EUROC-DRT-Registry

[Figure: see text].

Left atrial appendage occlusion with the Amplatzer™ Amulet™ device: full results of the prospective global observational study

AIMS

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) with the Amplatzer™ Amulet™ occluder.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients with atrial fibrillation eligible for LAAO were recruited to a prospective global study. Implant procedures were undertaken with echocardiographic guidance. Transoesophageal echocardiography (TOE) was undertaken 1-3 months post-LAAO. Implant and follow-up TOEs were evaluated by a CoreLab. The primary endpoint was a composite of ischaemic stroke and cardiovascular death at 2 years. Serious adverse events were adjudicated by an independent clinical events committee. A total of 1088 patients were enrolled, aged 75.2 ± 8.5 years; 64.5% were male. CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED scores were 4.2 ± 1.6 and 3.3 ± 1.1, respectively. A total of 71.7% had prior major bleeding, and 82.8% had contraindications to oral anticoagulants. Implant success was 99.1%. Major adverse events (≤7 days post-procedure) occurred in 4.0%, including death (0.3%), stroke (0.4%), major vascular (1.3%), and device embolization (0.2%). A total of 80.2% of patients were discharged on antiplatelet therapy alone. Peridevice flow was <3 mm in 98.4% at follow-up TOE. Device-related thrombus (DRT) was seen in 1.6% of cases. Cardiovascular death or ischaemic stroke occurred in 8.7% of patients at 2 years. The ischaemic stroke rate was 2.2%/year-a 67% reduction compared to the CHA2DS2-VASc predicted rate. Major bleeding (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type ≥ 3) occurred at rates of 10.1%/year (year 1) and 4.0%/year (year 2).

CONCLUSION

Following LAAO with the Amplatzer Amulet device, the ischaemic stroke rate was reduced by 67% compared to the predicted risk. Closure was complete in 98.4% of cases and DRT seen in only 1.6%.

Percutaneous Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion: An Emerging Option in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation at High Risk of Bleeding

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common cardiac arrhythmia with an estimated prevalence of 1% in the general population. It is associated with an increased risk of ischemic stroke, silent cerebral ischemia, and cognitive impairment. Due to the blood flow stasis and morphology, thrombus formation occurs mainly in the left atrial appendage (LAA), particularly in the setting of nonvalvular AF (NVAF). Previous studies have shown that >90% of emboli related to NVAF originate from the LAA, thus prevention of systemic cardioembolism is indicated. According to the current guidelines, anticoagulant therapy with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) or vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), represents the standard of care in AF patients, in order to prevent ischemic stroke and peripheral embolization. Although these drugs are widely used and DOACs have shown, compared to VKAs, non-inferiority for stroke prevention with significantly fewer bleeding complications, some issues remain a matter of debate, including contraindications, side effects, and adherence. An increasing number of patients, indeed, because of high bleeding risk or after experiencing life-threatening bleedings, must take anticoagulants with extreme caution if not contraindicated. While surgical closure or exclusion of LAA has been historically used in patients with AF with contradictory results, in the recent years, a novel procedure has emerged to prevent the cardioembolic stroke in these patients: The percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO). Different devices have been developed in recent years, though not all of them are approved in Europe and some are still under clinical investigation. Currently available devices have shown a significant decrease in bleeding risk while maintaining efficacy in preventing thromboembolism. The procedure can be performed percutaneously through the femoral vein access, under general anesthesia. A transseptal puncture is required to access left atrium and is guided by transesophageal echocardiography (TEE). Evidence from the current literature indicates that percutaneous LAAO represents a safe alternative for those patients with contraindications for long-term oral anticoagulation. This review summarizes scientific evidences regarding LAAO for stroke prevention including clinical indications and an adequate patient selection.

Delayed pericardial effusion after left atrial appendage closure with the LAmbre device: Importance of a fully open umbrella

INTRODUCTION

We aimed to investigate whether a modified implantation method facilitating a fully open umbrella can reduce the pericardial effusion/pericardial tamponade (PE/PT) rate after left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) with the LAmbre device compared with the conventional method (CM) in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients with NVAF who received either isolated LAAC or combined catheter ablation and LAAC using the LAmbre device at the First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University from January 2018 to December 2019 were enrolled. CM was used for device implantation in the initial 59 patients, while a modified method (MM) was used in the remaining 165 patients. Successful implantation was achieved in 98.3% of patients in the CM group and 98.8% in the MM group. A higher rate of a fully open umbrella (98.8% vs. 69%, p < .001), less requirement for recapture (46% vs. 62.1%, p = .036), and a lower incidence of delayed PE/PT (1.2% vs. 8.6%, p = .005) were found in the MM group compared with the CM group. All of the five delayed PT events occurred in patients with combined treatment. An umbrella that was not fully open was the only factor associated with delayed PE/PT events in a multivariable Cox model.

CONCLUSIONS

LAAC with the LAmbre device using an MM significantly increases the rate of a fully open umbrella and decreases the requirement for recapture and the incidence of delayed PE/PT. This method is more effective in patients with combined treatment.

Leaks after Left Atrial Appendage Closure: Ignored or Neglected?

Left atrial appendage (LAA) closure has recently been approved as an alternative management for stroke prevention in patients with chronic atrial fibrillation who have difficulties with long-term oral anticoagulation. The various shapes and sizes of LAA and orientation of the atrial ostium may contribute to the incomplete LAA closure from circular design devices and orientation of the non-steerable delivery catheter. Incomplete closure of LAA leads to a high-velocity blood flow through the peri-device gap, resulting in peri-device leak (PDL). Residual leaks are frequently diagnosed after LAA closure procedures, regardless of closure methods. There is a controversy in the clinical significance of the leaks, particularly about its association with thromboembolic events. PDL <5 mm was not associated with any increase of risk for thromboembolism. Current literatures with small study population have not been sufficient to clarify the role of the leaks after LAA closure. Nevertheless, management of severe leaks has been a challenging concern for cardiologists. Leaks after epicardial LAA closures are at the neck of the incompletely closed LAA and have shown to increase the risk of thromboembolism. Percutaneous closure of the leaks after LAA closure has been attempted with good safety and success, but long-term safety and efficacy remains unclear. Further large long-term studies which aim to assess the role of leaks or PDLs in predicting thromboembolic events and management strategies are warranted.

Safety of reduced or absent antithrombotic therapy after left atrial appendage closure in patients affected by hereditary haemorrhagic telangiectasia and atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Left atrial appendage (LAA) closure represents a novel therapeutic chance for patients with contraindications to long-term anticoagulation therapy, such as those affected by Hereditary Hemorrhagic Telangiectasia (HHT) and atrial fibrillation (AF). Nevertheless, current experts' indications suggest the post-procedural administration of antithrombotic therapies to minimize the residual thromboembolic risk due to AF and to the need for device endothelialization. The aim of our study was to investigate the safety and effectiveness of LAA closure in preventing arterial thromboembolism in a very high-bleeding risk group, such as HHT patients, who are at risk not to tolerate even the mild post-procedural antithrombotic therapy usually recommended.

METHODS

Eight HHT-affected patients with non-valvular AF, high-bleeding risk and/or known intolerance to antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy were treated with interventional LAA occlusion with the Amplatzer™ Cardiac Plug™ and Amplatzer™ Amulet™ devices. Device implantation was successful in all patients.

RESULTS

Post-procedural antiplatelet/anticoagulation therapy was attempted in seven patients: adherence to therapy exceeded six months only for one, while four patients suspended all antithrombotic medications within 30 days from the procedure due to an increase in bleeding frequency and/or severity and the other two discontinued treatment within six months; a single patient was not prescribed any antithrombotic therapy. At a medium follow-up of 22.4±14.3 months no thromboembolic episodes attributable to AF or device related thrombosis were reported. Two deaths were recorded 1231 and 783 days after the procedure which were classified as unrelated to any cerebral or cardiovascular accident.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that the percutaneous LAA closure in HHT patients with AF could be safe and effective in preventing arterial systemic thromboembolism, also in the presence of reduced or absent post-interventional antithrombotic treatment. LAA occluder implantation can represent a valid and potentially life-saving alternative to lifelong anticoagulant therapy in HHT, as in other very high-bleeding risk patients.

Left atrial appendage closure device complicated by late-onset pericardial effusion and tamponade: a case report

BACKGROUND

Late-onset complications of left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) device procedure are anecdotal and there are no such complications reported in literature using Cardia Ultraseal (Cardia, Inc., Eagan, MN, USA).

CASE SUMMARY

We report the case of a 74-year-old Caucasian man affected by paroxysmal atrial fibrillation with significant bleeding risk (familiar thrombocytopenia, macroscopic haematuria episodes during therapy with direct oral anticoagulants, HAS-BLED risk score: 4) and ischaemic risk as well (CHADSVASC score: 3). The patient was treated with LAAO device implantation for high bleeding risk. Subsequently, after 26 days from LAAO procedure, he was admitted to the emergency department for haematic cardiac tamponade. The patient was successfully treated with subxyphoidal pericardiocentesis in the acute phase, unfortunately cardiac arrest occurred during the transfer to the referral hospital for urgent cardiac surgery. Permanent neurological damage was reported and the patient died on day 28.

DISCUSSION

LAAO late-onset complications are very rare and the case presented is the first case described of late-onset pericardial effusion and tamponade secondary to the Cardia Ultraseal LAAO device implantation. We present a revision of the literature regarding the occurrence of similar adverse events and discuss the hypothetical mechanism of this major complication.

Preclinical assessment of a modified Occlutech left atrial appendage closure device in a porcine model

Left atrial appendage (LAA) closure is being developed as an alternative for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation that cannot tolerate long-term oral anticoagulation. To assess the feasibility, safety, and performance of a novel modified Occlutech LAA closure device in a preclinical porcine model, the modified Occlutech modified Occlutech Plus LAA closure device was implanted in 12 female pigs (25-39 kg body weight) under fluoroscopic and transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) guidance. Procedural and technical success, as well as safety of LAA closure, were evaluated peri-procedurally and after 4, 8, and 12 weeks. Moreover, after 4, 8 and, 12 weeks animals were sacrificed for pathological analysis (e.g., thrombus formation, device ingrowth, endothelialization, and inflammation). All LAA closure devices were successfully implanted. On follow-up, no serious adverse events such as device-associated thrombus or translocalization/embolization were observed. A clinically non-significant pericarditis was observed in 4 animals at the time of autopsy. Endothelialization of the device was visible after 4 weeks, advanced after 8 weeks and completed after 12 weeks. Immunohistochemistry showed low amounts of inflammatory infiltration on the edges of the device. The results of this study indicate that implantation of a modified Occlutech LAA closure device is feasible with rapid endothelialization and low inflammatory infiltration in a porcine model. Human data are needed to further characterize safety and efficacy.

Outcomes on safety and efficacy of left atrial appendage occlusion in end stage renal disease patients undergoing dialysis

BACKGROUND

In patients with end stage renal disease and atrial fibrillation (AF), undergoing chronic dialysis, direct oral agents are contraindicated and warfarin does not fully prevent embolic events while increasing the bleeding risk. The high hemorrhagic risk represents the main problem in this population. Aim of the study was to estimate the safety and efficacy for thromboembolic prevention of left atrial appendage (LAA) occlusion in a cohort of dialysis patients with AF and high hemorrhagic risk.

METHODS

Ninety-two dialysis patients with AF who underwent LAA occlusion were recruited. For comparative purposes, two cohorts of dialysis patients with AF, one taking warfarin (oral anticoagulant therapy, OAT cohort, n = 114) and the other not taking any OAT (no-therapy cohort, n = 148) were included in the study. Primary endpoints were (1) incidence of peri-procedural complications, (2) incidence of 2-year thromboembolic and hemorrhagic events, (3) mortality at 2 years. In order to evaluate the effect of the LAA occlusion on the endpoints with respect to the OAT and No-therapy cohorts, a multivariable Cox regression model was applied adjusted for possible confounding factors.

RESULTS

The device was successfully implanted in 100% of cases. Two major peri-procedural complications were reported. No thromboembolic events occurred at 2-year follow-up. The adjusted multivariable Cox regression model showed no difference in bleeding risk in the OAT compared to the LAA occlusion cohort in the first 3 months of follow-up [HR 1.65 (95% CI 0.43-6.33)], when most of patients were taking two antiplatelet drugs. In the following 21 months the bleeding incidence became higher in OAT patients [HR 6.48 (95% CI 1.32-31.72)]. Overall mortality was greater in both the OAT [HR 2.76 (95% CI 1.31-5.86)] and No-Therapy [HR 3.09 (95% CI 1.59-5.98)] cohorts compared to LAA occlusion patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The study could open the way to a non-pharmacological option for thromboembolic protection in dialysis patients with AF and high bleeding risk.

Comparison of Different Procedural Approaches for Left Atrial Appendage Closure: Searching for Simplicity

Aim. To assess procedural and long-term efficacy and safety of two alternative methods for appendage closure, conscious sedation with standard transoesophageal echo and procedure guided by rotational angiography. Background. Demand for appendage closure is increasing, and a reasonable time-response should be given to nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients not suitable to receive anticoagulation. General anesthesia and the need for an anesthesiologist are limiting factors to improve procedure availability; it is time to introduce simpler approaches. Methods. Single center experience in appendage closure during 9 years, using three different procedural approaches: general anesthesia with echo guidance, conscious sedation with echo guidance, and rotational angiography guidance. Conscious sedation and rotational angiography-guided procedures were performed in the absence of an anesthesiologist. Procedural characteristics and follow-up events were recorded. Results. 260 consecutive appendage closure procedures were reviewed: 155 were performed under general anesthesia (59.6%), 71 were performed with conscious sedation (27.3%), and 34 were rotational angiography guided (13.1%). Device success rate for procedures guided by rotational angiography was significantly lower than that for general anesthesia and conscious sedation (91.2% versus 100% versus 98.6%, $p=0.001$ ) because there was a greater need to recapture and change device size. However, final procedural success was high and without difference between approaches (98.8% versus 97.2% versus 100%, for general anesthesia, conscious sedation, and rotational angiography, respectively); with a median follow-up of 17 months (CI 95% 13–23 month) (637.9 patients-year), there was no difference among approaches for thromboembolic (1.3 versus 1.8 versus 1.8) and major bleeding events (3.2 versus 2.8 versus 1.8), respectively. Conclusions. Appendage closure performed, either with conscious sedation with echo guidance or rotational angiography guided, is feasible, with no difference in procedural success and follow-up events compared with general anesthesia and without the limitation of the need for an anesthesiologist on-site.

Interventional Treatment for Stroke Prevention

Closure of the left atrial appendage using percutaneous transcatheter occlusion devices is used for stroke prevention as an alternative for patients with a high risk or contraindications for long-term oral anticoagulation use. Herein, we will discuss the practical aspects of five among the available devices used for interventional left atrial appendage occlusion: Watchman, Amulet, WaveCrest, LAmbre, and Lariat.

Imaging risk features for device related pulmonary artery injury after left atrial appendage closure with Amplatzer™ Amulet™ device

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to find imaging risk features for device related-pulmonary artery (PA) injury (DR-PAI) in patients after left atrial appendage closure (LAAC).

BACKGROUND

Cardiac tamponade resulting from DR-PAI is a rare but life-threatening complication of LAAC.

METHODS

In vitro analysis of Amplatzer™ Amulet™ (Abbott, MN) device was done. Measurements of the distance between PA and Amplatzer lobe at its middle part, distal part, and along the stabilizing wires' trajectory (wires-to-PA distance) were taken in 100 consecutive patients on post-LAAC computed tomography (CT) studies. Clinical outcomes were collected.

RESULTS

In vitro analysis indicated that both middle and distal lobe had to be in close PA proximity (<1.5 mm) for the stabilizing wires to cause risk for DR-PAI, configuration called ''cuddling lobe orientation''. On CT measurements middle lobe-PA distance was 4.7 mm (IQR = 2.7-9.5), with close proximity in 4 (4%) patients, and distal lobe-PA distance was 3.2 mm (IQR = 1.8-7.2 mm), with close proximity in 17 (17%) patients. Stabilizing wires were pointing toward PA in 47 patients (47%) with median wire-to-PA distance 5.7 mm (IQR = 3.6-8.5 mm). ''Cuddling'' was found in 2 (2%) patients and resulted in shorter wires-to-PA distance vs no ''cuddling'' group (2.3 vs 5.8 mm p <.01). At 2.9 ± 1.0 yrs of follow-up, the two patients with ''cuddling lobe orientation'' on post-LAAC CT scan developed late cardiac tamponades (p <.001). One of those required surgery, which confirmed DR-PAI.

CONCLUSIONS

''Cuddling lobe orientation'' of Amulet device with the PA was associated with short wires-to-PA distance and late pericardial effusions, including DR-PAI. Hence, such device-to-PA configuration should be avoided.

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.

Plugs for left atrial appendage occlusion: an overview of available devices

INTRODUCTION

Approximately one-third of all ischemic strokes and the ensuing health and economic burden can be attributed to the presence of atrial fibrillation (AF). The global prevalence of AF continues to rise, thus making it by far the most common diagnosed cardiac arrhythmia. Percutaneous left atrial appendage (LAA) occlusion or obliteration has been developed to protect from the occurrence of stroke in patients with nonvalvular AF.

AREAS COVERED

We address the characteristics and techniques for implantation as well as some clinical registries and randomized trials of the various catheter-based devices for the occlusion of the LAA that are either currently available or in the clinical evaluation stage.

EXPERT OPINION

Over less than 2 decades, LAA occlusion progressed from being a concept applied in a few specialized centers to a globally recognized procedure implemented in numerous hospitals as part of daily interventional practice. The respective devices are to date safer and easier to deploy than initially. Periprocedural and postprocedural complications will continue to decrease as already evident from prospective randomized trials and registries. Although current indications focus on patients with nonvalvular AF and contraindications for oral anticoagulation, it is all but certain that the future will bring a widening in the spectrum of indications, applicability, and usage of these devices.

Indications and Outcome in Patients Undergoing Left Atrial Appendage Closure-The Austrian LAAC Registry

Background: Complete real-world data on the indications and outcomes of left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) outside of clinical trials are rare. In this study, we stratified patients undergoing LAAC by indication groups. Methods: This analysis of the national multicentre Austrian LAAC Registry comprised all patients that underwent LAAC up until 2018 at the currently active centres in Austria. The baseline characteristics, procedural details and outcomes between the following indication groups were compared: bleeding as an indication for LAAC (“bleeding” group) vs. thromboembolism despite oral anticoagulation (OAC; “thromboembolism” group) vs. an intolerance to OAC for reasons other than the above (“other” group). Results: The analysis included 186 patients, with 59.7% in the “bleeding” group, 8.1% in the “thromboembolism” group and 32.2% in the “other” group. The CHADS₂ score was the highest in the “thromboembolism” group and the HAS-BLED score was the highest in the “bleeding” group. The procedural outcomes were similar between groups (implantation success, 97.3%), with major complications occurring in 7.0% of patients. One-year survival free from stroke, bleeding or LAAC-associated hospitalisation was 83.9%, 90.0% and 81.4% in the “bleeding”, “thromboembolism” and “other” groups, respectively (p = 0.891). Conclusions: In routine clinical practice, LAAC was used in a heterogeneous patient population with atrial fibrillation (AF) and contraindication, inefficacy or intolerance to OAC. The long-term outcome was favourable in all groups.

Midterm outcomes of LAA occlusion with the AMPLATZER Cardiac Plug and AMPLATZER Amulet devices in a high-risk cohort

LAA occlusion has become a favourable option in patients with atrial fibrillation not eligible for oral anticoagulation therapy. Proof of effectiveness of LAA closure devices in a midterm follow-up period. This retrospective single-center cohort study analysed outcome in patients treated with AMPLATZER Cardiac Plug or AMPLATZER Amulet device. A standardized follow-up by phone call focusing on data of death, stroke and bleeding events was performed. Routine antiplatelet strategy was DAPT for 3 months post procedural. 212 patients (mean age 77 ± 6 years) were included. Follow up was performed in 197 (93%) patients. Patients were at high risk for thromboembolic or bleeding events (prior stroke/TIA 29%; prior bleeding 54%. Overall, there was a mean follow-up period of 1244.2 days (± 756.7) and a total of 674 patient years. We observed 25 events later than day 8 post procedure. We were able to demonstrate a high effectiveness of the AMPLATZER Cardiac Plug/AMPLATZER Amulet devices regarding the prevention of stroke and bleedings in a high-risk real-world cohort during a midterm follow-up period. Overall, we observed remarkably lower rates of stroke and bleedings as predicted with CHA₂DS₂-VASc and HASBLED scores.

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.

Why Follow-up Examinations After Left Atrial Appendage Closure Are Important: Detection of Complications During Follow-up and How to Deal with Them

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Device-related thrombus (DRT) formation and incomplete left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) are the two major complications that can occur after LAAC and can potentially limit the success of such a procedure. This review discusses the incidence, clinical and/or prognostic significance, detection methods, treatment options, and potential strategies to prevent these complications.

RECENT FINDINGS

It has recently been proven that the presence of a DRT represents an independent predictor for ischemic stroke after LAAC. Continued need for anticoagulation due to incomplete LAAC is clinically relevant to the patient. The appearances of a DRT or an incompletely closed LAA after a LAAC procedure are not rare complications. Due to the clinical and/or prognostic significance of these complications, it is important to detect them in a timely manner during follow-up by using the appropriate diagnostic imaging techniques. Since a DRT is associated with an increased risk of stroke, the therapy should be aggressive. In the case of incomplete LAA closure, an additional closure device may be used to complete occlusion and avoid lifelong anticoagulation therapy.

Percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation

Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) have a fivefold higher risk of stroke than persons in sinus rhythm. Effective stroke prevention is achieved with oral anticoagulants such as vitamin K antagonists or nonvitamin K oral anticoagulants. An alternative for stroke prevention in patients with AF is the closure of the left atrial appendage (LAA) with a percutaneously applied closure system. The two large randomized studies PROTECT-AF and PREVAIL failed to show superiority of LAA closure over anticoagulation in patients with AF. Meta-analyses of studies and registries, however, suggest that LAA closure has particular advantages with regard to the reduction of severe bleeding complications. Currently, several prospective randomized studies are being conducted in different patient populations to evaluate the benefit of LAA closure in comparison to standard of care. Currently, LAA closure is recommended in patients after intracranial hemorrhage, with advanced renal failure, after severe gastrointestinal bleeding, in patients with a high risk of recurrent ischemic stroke and elderly patients with high risk of bleeding and falling.

Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion: Past, Present and Future

There are several situations whereby oral anticoagulation may be unsuitable for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Percutaneous left atrial appendage (LAA) occlusion has received much attention in this area. Various devices have already been developed and tested for this purpose. Data from registries and cohort studies have indicated favourable short- and long-term outcomes with LAA occlusion, and several international guidelines recommend its use in AF patients with contraindications to oral anticoagulation. However, prospective controlled trials in this very population are lacking. Furthermore, while modelling studies on cost analyses have suggested that LAA occlusion may be a cost-effective strategy compared with standard medical therapy, these have not been performed in high-risk patients who may have limited survival in the medium to long term. Thus, while LAA occlusion offers promise, there is a strong need for additional research to investigate its exact role, its long-term outcomes and cost efficacy.

The WATCHMAN left atrial appendage closure device for patients with atrial fibrillation: current status and future perspectives

INTRODUCTION

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with an increased risk of stroke. Stroke prevention with oral anticoagulation (OAC) is recommended in AF patients at increased risk of stroke. The left atrial appendage (LAA) is the main source of thrombus formation in AF patients. The WATCHMAN percutaneous LAA closure (LAAC) device may serve as an alternative to OAC overcoming disadvantages including the risk of (major) bleeding.

AREAS COVERED

This review will focus on LAAC with the Watchman device for stroke prevention in AF patients. Current status, available literature, clinical safety and efficacy will be summarized. Furthermore, the future perspectives of Watchman will be discussed.

EXPERT OPINION

LAAC with Watchman appears a promising, safe, and effective alternative to OAC. Ongoing and future studies to consolidate the position of Watchman should focus on comparative safety and efficacy of different LAAC devices, patient selection, various post-procedural antithrombotic regimens, head-to-head comparisons with NOAC, better understanding of device-related thrombus, and the role of the LAA in the propagation of non-valvular AF. This research may attribute to a paradigm shift in which LAAC no longer serves as a 'last resort' treatment for AF patients ineligible for OAC but may serve as a second-line or even first-line treatment option for AF patients.

Major Bleeding Predictors in Patients with Left Atrial Appendage Closure: The Iberian Registry II

Introduction and objective: Major bleeding events in patients undergoing left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) range from 2.2 to 10.3 per 100 patient-years in different series. This study aimed to clarify the bleeding predictive factors that could influence these differences. Methods: LAAC was performed in 598 patients from the Iberian Registry II (1093 patient-years; median, 75.4 years). We conducted a multivariate analysis to identify predictive risk factors for major bleeding events. The occurrence of thromboembolic and bleeding events was compared to rates expected from CHA2DS2-VASc (congestive heart failure, hypertension, age, diabetes, stroke history, vascular disease, sex) and HAS-BLED (hypertension, abnormal renal and liver function, stroke, bleeding, labile INR, elderly, drugs or alcohol) scores. Results: Cox regression analysis revealed that age ≥75 years (HR: 2.5; 95% CI: 1.3 to 4.8; p = 0.004) and a history of gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) (HR: 2.1; 95% CI: 1.1 to 3.9; p = 0.020) were two factors independently associated with major bleeding during follow-up. Patients aged <75 or ≥75 years had median CHA2DS2-VASc scores of 4 (IQR: 2) and 5 (IQR: 2), respectively (p < 0.001) and HAS-BLED scores were 3 (IQR: 1) and 3 (IQR: 1) for each group (p = 0.007). Events presented as follow-up adjusted rates according to age groups were stroke (1.2% vs. 2.9%; HR: 2.4, p = 0.12) and major bleeding (3.7 vs. 9.0 per 100 patient-years; HR: 2.4, p = 0.002). Expected major bleedings according to HAS-BLED scores were 6.2% vs. 6.6%, respectively. In patients with GIB history, major bleeding events were 6.1% patient-years (HAS-BLED score was 3.8 ± 1.1) compared to 2.7% patients-year in patients with no previous GIB history (HAS-BLED score was 3.4 ± 1.2; p = 0.029). Conclusions: In this high-risk population, GIB history and age ≥75 years are the main predictors of major bleeding events after LAAC, especially during the first year. Age seems to have a greater influence on major bleeding events than on thromboembolic risk in these patients.

Left atrial appendage occlusion with the Amulet device: to tug or not to tug?

PURPOSE

Left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) involves a "tug test," in which implanters pull on the device delivery cable to ensure stable occluder placement. The aim of this study was to evaluate the recommendation to perform the tug test, by comparing forces exerted on the device during deployment and subsequent tug test. A secondary objective was to simulate forces experienced on left atrial appendage tissue by placement of a 20-mm device.

METHODS

The AMPLATZER™ Amulet™ device was used for occlusion. A force transducer recorded forces in the delivery cable during deployment and tug test in 23 patients. Four patients were excluded due to improper transducer placement or technical errors in data collection. For a 20-mm device, the force imparted on the circumferential contact with left atrial appendage wall tissue was simulated in a computational model, using the measured externally applied forces as inputs.

RESULTS

For devices < 25-mm in diameter, disc deployment force (mean ± standard deviation) was 1.72 ± 0.43 N, and tug force was 1.01 ± 0.59 N. For devices ≥ 25 mm in diameter, disc deployment force was 2.96 ± 0.57 N, and tug force was 1.04 ± 0.24 N. The increase in disc deployment force compared with tug test force was statistically significant for small devices (< 25 mm; p = 0.049) and large devices (≥ 25 mm; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Increased force applied on the AMPLATZER™ Amulet™ device during disc deployment compared with during tug test was statistically significant, suggesting that the tug test is redundant in most cases for checking device stability.

Left atrial appendage occlusion for ischemic stroke prevention in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation: clinical expert opinion and consensus statement for the Asian-Pacific region

PURPOSE

To develop a consensus statement for left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) in Asian-Pacific patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) at risk of ischemic stroke. The need for such a region-specific consensus was indicated by the relative paucity of clinical evidence for LAAO and oral anticoagulation therapy obtained in Asian-Pacific populations and the specific stroke and bleeding characteristics of this population.

METHODS

Consensus was developed by discussion and evaluation of available evidence and expert opinions during a 2-day meeting attended by clinical experts from the Asian-Pacific regions.

RESULTS

The consensus statement arrived at provides recommendations based on available evidence and expert opinions regarding LAAO in Asian-Pacific patients. Gaps in the evidence and other areas requiring further research were identified.

CONCLUSION

LAAO is an alternative device-based therapy in carefully selected patients with NVAF at risk of ischemic stroke. However, evidence for LAAO is primarily obtained from Caucasian populations, and data on LAAO in Asian-Pacific patients are scarce. While the present consensus statement addresses several therapy-related aspects based on careful interpretation of available evidence and expert opinions, other areas require additional evidence derived from Asian-Pacific populations.

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

AIMS

The aim of this study was to compare the periprocedural and late clinical outcomes of left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) with AMPLATZER devices by access through transseptal puncture (TSP) versus a patent foramen ovale (PFO) or an atrial septal defect (ASD).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Between 2009 and 2018, 578 consecutive patients underwent LAAC via TSP or PFO/ASD access in three centres. After a 3:1 propensity score matching, 246 (TSP) versus 91 (PFO/ASD) patients were compared using the primary efficacy endpoint of all-cause stroke, systemic embolism and cardiovascular/unexplained death and the primary safety endpoint of major periprocedural complications and major bleedings at follow-up. Mean age was 75.2±8.7 (TSP) vs 74.4±10.9 (PFO/ASD) years, CHA2DS2-VASc score 4.5±1.6 vs 4.3±1.4 and HAS-BLED score 3.3±1.0 vs 3.3±0.9. Device success (97.6% vs 97.8%, p=0.90) was similar. After 2.5±1.4 vs 2.6±1.6 years, clinical efficacy (46/603, 7.6% [TSP] vs 21/233, 9.0% [PFO/ASD], hazard ratio [HR] 1.2; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.69-0.85, p=0.54) and safety (24/603, 4.0% vs 11/233, 4.7%; HR 1.4; 95% CI: 0.52-3.6, p=0.49) did not differ.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of a PFO/ASD access for LAAC with AMPLATZER devices offers similar periprocedural and late clinical outcomes to TSP. Simultaneous PFO/ASD closure for an additional protective benefit does not increase risk.

Observed versus Expected Ischemic and Bleeding Events Following Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion

Data on the efficacy of left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) in clinical practice are limited. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies that reported observed versus expected rates of ischemic strokes and/or major bleeding following LAAO. Our primary end points were the pooled relative risk reduction (RRR) in ischemic stroke and major bleeding with corresponding 95% confidence intervals compared with what was expected by the CHA2DS2-VASc and HASBLED scores, respectively. Twenty-nine studies including 11,071 patients (age 74.0 ± 8.7 years, 60% males) met the inclusion criteria. The mean CHA2DS2-VASc score was 4.22 ± 1.48, and the mean HASBLED score was 3.04 ± 1.16. During 19,567 patient-year follow-up, 290 of 11,071 patients (2.62%) suffered an acute ischemic stroke. This represented a 73.6% (95% confidence interval 68.9-78.2%) RRR in ischemic strokes compared with what was expected based on the CHA2DS2-VASc score. A total of 26 studies reported observed versus expected major bleeding (10,056 patients; age 74.0 ± 8.7, 60% males). During 16,967 patient-year follow-up, 404 of 10,056 patients (4.0%) suffered a major bleeding event. This represented a 55% (95% confidence interval 44.2% to -65.9%) RRR in major bleeding compared with what was expected based on the HASBLED score. These estimates were consistent across subgroups stratified according to age, CHADS2VASc, HASBLED scores and type of LAAO device used. In conclusion, LAAO is associated with a favorable observed/expected ratio with regards to ischemic stroke and major bleeding in clinical practice. Future clinical trials remain essential to further assess the efficacy of LAAO via a direct comparison with oral anticoagulation.

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.

Closure of the left atrial appendage using percutaneous transcatheter occlusion devices

Closure of the left atrial appendage (LAA) using percutaneous transcatheter occlusion devices is used for stroke prevention as an alternative for patients with a high risk and contraindications for long-term oral anticoagulation use. In this manuscript, we will discuss the practical aspects of four among the available devices that provide percutaneous intravascular closure of the LAA: Watchman, Amulet, WaveCrest, and LAmbre.

Epicardial versus Endocardial Closure: Is One Better than the Other?

Left atrial appendage occlusion is an evolving technology with demonstrable benefits of stroke prophylaxis in patients with atrial fibrillation unsuitable for anticoagulation. This has resulted in the development of a plethora of transcatheter devices to achieve epicardial exclusion and endocardial occlusion. In this review, the authors summarize the differences in technique, target patient population, outcomes, and complication profiles of endocardial and epicardial techniques.

Postprocedural Management: Anticoagulation and Beyond

Excluding the left atrial appendage in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation is a mechanical way to decrease stroke risk. During endothelialization, the closure device is exposed to circulating blood, which might activate the coagulation cascade. In excessive proportions, possibly resulting in the development of device-related thrombus, requiring a bridging period with optimal antithrombotic treatment. Initial protocol treatment is less suitable for patients with contraindications to anticoagulation. Less intensive antithrombotic regimens investigated suggest safety and efficacy, however further research is required. A tailored treatment, considering bleeding and thromboembolic risk based on patient/procedural characteristics in every patient, is probably the best approach.

The History of the Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion

Atrial fibrillation (AF) has been a source of fascination for more than 100 years. Most early investigations centered on the mechanisms of the arrhythmia (reentry versus automaticity; site of origin; approaches to treatment or prevention; and the clinical consequences), specifically tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy and the potential for lethal events in special circumstances (eg, preexcitation syndromes). The current increased interest in AF has been heightened by increasing information on the clinical volume and number of patients affected. Recent data identify a current prevalence rate of 6 million patients in the United States, which is predicted to become 12 million by 2030.

When to Refer Patients for Left Atrial Appendage Closure

Referring patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) for left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) device should be based on bleeding risks, poor anticoagulation compliance, and patient goals. Patient selection should consider overall prognosis and risk of implant procedure. We detail specific clinical scenarios where LAAC could be considered, based on FDA-approved indications. The indications for LAAC are different in Europe. High-risk scenarios in which LAA occlusion may be preferred alone, or in addition to oral anticoagulation use, are reviewed. Ongoing clinical trials and newer device designs will help change the appropriate post-implant drug regimen which will affect patient and device selection.

Systematic review on left atrial appendage closure with the LAmbre device in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous closure (LAAC) of the left atrial appendage (LAA) is an efficacious preventive procedure for patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) and considerable bleeding risk. We sought to systematically review the available LAAC data on the novel occluder device LAmbre™.

METHODS

For this systematic review, a search of the literature was conducted by 3 independent reviewers, reporting the safety and therapeutic success of LAAC in patients being treated with a LAmbre™. Publications reporting the safety and therapeutic success of LAAC using LAmbre™ in n > 5 patients were included.

RESULTS

The literature search retrieved n = 10 publications, encompassing n = 403 NVAF patients treated with a LAmbre™ LAAC, with relevant data regarding safety and therapeutic success of the procedure. The mean CHA₂DS₂-VASc Score was 4.0 + 0.9, and the mean HAS-BLED score was 3.4 + 0.5. The implantation success was 99.7%, with a mean procedure time of 45.4 ± 18.7 min, and a fluoroscopy time of 9.6 ± 5.9 min, and a contrast agent volume of 96.7 ± 0.7 ml. The anticoagulation regimen was switched to DAPT post procedure in the majority of the patients (96.8%). Partial and full recapture were done in 45.5% and in 25.6%, respectively. Major complications were reported in 2.9%, with 0.3% mortality, 1.7% pericardial tamponade, 0.3% stroke, and 0.6% major bleeding complications; no device embolization was observed. During follow up at 6 or 12 months, major adverse cardiovascular events were reported in 3.3%: Stroke or TIA in 1.7%, thrombus formation on the device in 0.7%, and residual flow > 5 mm in 1.0%. In some publications, the favorable implantion properties of the LAmbre™ for difficult anatomies such as shallow or multilobular LAA anatomies were described.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review on the LAmbre™ LAA-occluder including n = 403 NVAF patients demonstrates an excellent implantion success rate, promising follow-up clinical data, and favorable properties for also challenging LAA anatomies,. While its design seems to be helpful in preventing device embolization, pericardial tamponade may not be substantially reduced by the LAmbre™ as compared with other established LAAC devices. Further larger prospective multicenter registries and randomized trials are needed to scrutinize the value of the LAmbre™ compared with established LAAC devices.