Percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion using different technologies in the United Kingdom: A multicenter registry

Comparison between Amulet and Watchman left atrial appendage closure devices: A real-world, single center experience

Background

Data reporting a head-to-head comparison between Amulet and Watchman devices are scarce. The aim of this study was to compare the Watchman™ versus Amulet™ left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) devices in a consecutive, industry-independent registry.

Methods

Patients who underwent LAAC using Watchman or Amulet devices from January 2014 to December 2019 at the University Heart Center Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany were included in the present analysis. Primary endpoints included periprocedural complications (in-hospital death, pericardial tamponade, device embolization, stroke, major bleeding and vascular access complications), and complications during long-term follow-up (ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, thromboembolism, device thrombus, bleeding and death).

Results

After matching the patients for age (±5 years), gender, CHA2DS2Vasc score (±1) and HASBLED score (±1), each of the Watchman and the Amulet groups included 113 patients. Patients in the Amulet group had significantly more periprocedural complications (2.7% vs 10.6%, p = 0.029; respectively) and more major bleeding complications (0% vs 5.3%, p = 0.029; respectively). During long-term follow-up, the rate of events was comparable between the Watchman and Amulet groups (18.3% versus 20.8%, p = 0.729; respectively).

Conclusion

Amulet LAAC device was associated with increased periprocedural complications as compared to Watchman LAAC device. On long-term follow-up, both devices showed comparable efficacy and safety.

Clinical follow-up of left atrial appendage occlusion in patients with atrial fibrillation ineligible of oral anticoagulation treatment-a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The recommended stroke prevention for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and increased risk of ischemic stroke is oral anticoagulation (OAC). Parts of the patient population are not eligible due to contraindication, and percutaneous left atrial occlusion (LAAO) can then be a preventive treatment option. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to estimate the long-term clinical effectiveness of LAAO as stroke prevention in patients with AF, increased risk of ischemic stroke, and contraindication to OAC.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis, using Poisson random effect models, to estimate the incidence rate (events per 100 patient-years) of ischemic stroke, transient ischemic attack, major bleeding, and all-cause death after LAAO treatment. We also calculated the risk reduction of ischemic stroke with LAAO compared with no stroke prevention estimated through a predicted risk in an untreated population (5.5 per 100 patient-years).

RESULTS

We included 29 observational studies in our meta-analysis, including 7 951 individuals and 12 211 patient-years. The mean CHA2DS2-VASc score among the patients in the included studies is 4.32. The pooled incidence rate of ischemic stroke is 1.38 per 100 patient-years (95% CI 1.08; 1.77). According to a meta-regression model, the estimated incidence rate of ischemic stroke at CHA2DS2-VASc 4 is 1.39 per 100 patient-years. This implies a risk reduction of 74.7% with LAAO compared to predicated risk with no stroke prevention.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that LAAO is effective as stroke prevention for patients with AF, increased risk of stroke, and contraindication to oral anticoagulation.

Percutaneous Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion: A View From the UK

AF is associated with an increased risk of thromboembolic events, which is usually managed with oral anticoagulation therapy. However, despite a broad range of anticoagulant options and improved uptake in anticoagulation over the past decade, there are some limitations to this approach. Percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion has been shown to be an effective alternative in this setting, and population data suggest a clear demand for this procedure. Over the past decade, several important changes to the commissioning and delivery of this service have occurred in the UK. In this article, the authors describe the use of percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion in the UK and discuss the challenges that lie ahead.

Late discovery of left atrial appendage occluder device embolization: a case report

BACKGROUND

Left atrial appendage (LAA) closure has been well evaluated in the prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation. Device embolization remains one of the most common complications. To the best of our knowledge, there have been no reports of late discovery of LAA occluder device embolization at 1.5 years after implantation.

CASE PRESENTATION

We describe the case of a 77-year-old man who underwent uneventful LAA closure. Echocardiography performed the next day showed the device in place. The patient was discharged but was then lost to follow-up. 1.5 years later, he was admitted for ischemic stroke. Transesophageal echocardiography showed the absence of the occluder device in the LAA. Computed tomography scan of the abdomen showed the device in the abdominal aorta. Due to the high cardiovascular risk, the device was kept in place and the patient was treated medically.

CONCLUSIONS

Per-procedural and late device embolization are not uncommon. Review of the literature however showed no report of late discovery of device embolization at 1.5 years. Follow-up echocardiography is mandatory for the detection of endothelialization or embolization.

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.

Left atrial appendage occlusion: a critical appraisal updated with recent evidence

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To allow readers to fully appreciate the uncertainties with this novel yet invasive approach to stroke prevention.

RECENT FINDINGS

Percutaneous left atrial (LA) appendage occlusion has emerged as potential nonpharmacologic means to prevent stroke and systemic embolism in patients with atrial fibrillation. Yet the evidence underpinning this new technology is not definitive.

SUMMARY

In this review, we consider the internal and external validity of the regulatory trials, pathophysiologic basis for LA appendage occlusion and clinical tradeoffs of the procedure.

Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion: The Current Device Landscape and Future Perspectives

Since the first percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO), many studies have shown the safety and efficacy of this technique to prevent embolic strokes in nonvavular atrial fibrillation. The design, characteristics, and clinical data of the most frequently used devices for LAAO are reviewed, including the Amplatzer cardiac plug and Amulet (Abbott Vascular), the Watchman (Boston Scientific), and the LARIAT device (SentreHEART). Similarly, newer closer devices, such as Ultraseal (Cardia), LAmbre (Lifetech), and Coherex WaveCrest (Johnson & Johnson), are also discussed. Finally, new technologies still in the stage of preclinical study or in the initial clinical experience are also reviewed.

Transcatheter left atrial appendage occlusion for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation: results from the Belgian registry

AIMS

This study aimed to assess the safety and efficacy at midterm follow-up of left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) using different devices, in real life in Belgium.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Between June 2009 and November 2016, 457 consecutive patients (63% male, 75±12 yrs, CHA2DS2-VASc 4±0.6, HAS-BLED 3.5±0.7) undergoing LAAO were included. Technical success was 97.1%. There were 19 periprocedural major adverse events (4.1%) including three deaths (0.6%), nine tamponades (1.9%), four major bleedings (0.8%) and two device embolisations (0.4%). Among patients successfully implanted having a complete follow-up (672 patient-years, median follow-up 370 days), the actual annual stroke rate was 1.2%, lower than the expected stroke risk of 4% (70% reduction). The observed bleeding rate was 2%, while the calculated risk was 3.7% (46% reduction). Kaplan-Meier analysis showed a similar overall survival (93±2% and 87±3% versus 91±3% and 87±4%; p=0.35) and event-free survival (92±2% and 84±3% versus 88±3% and 80±5%; p=0.17) at one and two years, for the ACP/Amulet versus the WATCHMAN groups of patients, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The data from the Belgian left atrial appendage occlusion registry suggest that the procedure is effective and relatively safe in a real-world setting, using either the WATCHMAN or the ACP/Amulet device.

Percutaneous devices for left atrial appendage occlusion: A contemporary review

Patient with atrial fibrillation (AF) are at risk of developing stroke with the left atrial appendage (LAA) being the most common site for thrombus formation. If left untreated, AF is associated with 4 to 5 folds increase in the risk of ischemic stroke in all age groups. About 5% to 15% of AF patients have atrial thrombi on transesophageal echocardiography, and 91% of those thrombi are located in the LAA in patient with nonrheumatic AF. Although oral anticoagulants are the gold-standard treatment for stroke prevention in patients with non-valvular AF, some patients are at high risk of bleeding and deemed not candidates for anticoagulation. Therefore, LAA occlusion (LAAO) has emerged as alternative approach for stroke prevention in those patients. Surgical LAAO is associated with high rate of unsuccessful closure and recommended only in patients with AF and undergoing cardiac surgery. Percutaneous LAAO uses transvenous access with trans-septal puncture and was first tested using the PLAATO device. Watchman is the most common and only Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved device for LAAO. LAAO using Watchman device is non-inferior to warfarin therapy in preventing ischemic stroke/systemic thromboembolism. However, it is associated with lower rates of hemorrhagic stroke, bleeding and death. Amplatzer is another successful LAAO device that has CE mark and is waiting for FDA approval. Optimal antithrombotic therapy post LAAO is still under debate and highly patient-specific. The aim of this paper is to systematically review the current literature to evaluate the efficacy and safety of different LAAO devices.

Left atrial appendage occlusion for stroke prevention in diabetes mellitus patients with atrial fibrillation: Long-term results

BACKGROUND

Concomitant diabetes mellitus (DM) in atrial fibrillation (AF) may increase the risk of thromboembolism. Left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) is an alternative treatment in AF patients in whom antithrombotic therapy is ineffective or contraindicated. The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term efficacy of LAAO in DM patients with AF.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted in 139 patients who had undergone LAAO and were categorized into two groups: 28 patients with DM and 111 patients without DM. Overall, the follow-up period was 530 patient-years.

RESULTS

Mean CHADS₂ and CHA₂ DS₂ -VASc scores were higher in patients with than without DM (2.6 vs 1.7 [P < 0.001] and 3.5 vs 2.8 [P = 0.056], respectively). There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of HAS-BLED scores and other patient factors (sex, age, heart failure, hypertension, previous stroke or transient ischemic attack, peripheral vascular disease) that may increase the risk of thromboembolism based on CHA₂ DS₂ -VASc. The mean follow-up period was 51.6 and 50 months in patients with DM and without DM, respectively. Comparing patients with and without DM, there were no significant differences in thromboembolic events (4% vs 1.9%), severe bleeding (0% vs 3.1%), or mortality (4% vs 5.9%). The estimated reductions in thromboembolic and bleeding risk were 77% and 100%, respectively, for patients with DM, compared with 85% and 62%, respectively, for patients without DM.

CONCLUSION

The present study indicates that LAAO in AF patients with DM has similar safety endpoints and long-term efficacy as LAAO in patients without DM.

Current Endocardial Approaches for Left Atrial Appendage Closure

Collapse

Long term outcomes after left atrial appendage closure with the LARIAT device-Stroke risk reduction over five years follow-up

Introduction

Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) with LARIAT offers an alternative to oral anticoagulation (OAC) for patients with atrial fibrillation. The aim of this study was to present long-term clinical outcomes of LAAC in these patients (AF).

Material and methods

A prospective, single-center study was performed in 139 patients undergoing LAAC with Lariat. Thromboembolic events, severe bleeding and mortality rate were recorded. The reduction in risk of thromboembolism and bleeding after LAAC was calculated.

Results

The mean CHADS₂-score was 1.8 ± 1.0, mean CHA₂DS₂-VASc score was 2.9 ± 1.6 and HAS-BLED score was 3.1 ± 1.1. After 428.4 patient-years of follow-up (mean 4.2±1.0 years), the thromboembolism rate was 0.6% with a calculated thromboembolism risk reduction of 81%. The severe bleeding rate was 0.8%; calculated bleeding risk reduction was 78%. The overall mortality rate was 1.6%.

Conclusions

Long-term outcomes show that LAAC with Lariat is a safe and effective treatment for stroke prevention and bleeding risk reduction in AF patients with a high level of underlying risk.

Day-case percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion-Safety and efficacy

OBJECTIVES

We evaluated the safety and efficacy of percutaneous left atrial appendage (LAA) occlusion performed as a day case procedure.

BACKGROUND

LAA occlusion has been shown to be safe and effective for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation. It has not been shown if the procedure can safely be performed on a day-case basis.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis was made of 117 LAA occlusion procedures in a single large teaching hospital in the UK. Procedural success, procedural complications, length of stay, and readmission data were examined.

RESULTS

Successful deployment of a device was possible in all but one patient (whose appendage was too large). Major in-hospital complications occurred in 1.7% of patients (both femoral vascular). Same-day discharge was made in 66% of patients overall. Since January 2016, only 3 of 59 patients (5%) have remained in hospital overnight following LAAO. Echocardiography 2-4 hr postprocedure was undertaken prior to discharge. One patient was readmitted within 7 days but this readmission would not have been prevented by overnight stay.

CONCLUSIONS

LAA occlusion can be safely performed as a day case procedure with acceptable complication rates and no increment of complications related to the lack of routine overnight stay.

Left Atrial Appendages Occlusion: Current Status and Prospective

Stroke continues to be a major cause of morbidity and mortality in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients. Oral anticoagulation (OAC) provides protection against stroke and peripheral embolization in AF but significant proportion of patients could not be started on anticoagulation because of bleeding complications. Left atrial appendage harbors clot in about 90% of nonvalvular AF. The advent of left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) techniques has provided these patients with alternative to OAC for stroke prophylaxis. Multiple LAAO devices are currently available with Watchman and Amulet being the most commonly used in clinical practice. Randomized studies are available for Watchman device only. Data on Amplatzer Cardiac Plug, Amulet and Lariat devices are limited by the paucity of randomized data. Long-term data on different LAAO techniques are showing promising results. Device related thrombosis continues to be a serious complication associated with LAAO. Future studies should look into comparative effectiveness between different LAAO techniques, optimal patient selection, risk of complications, and anticoagulant treatment after LAAO. This article aims to provide current available evidence on efficacy and safety of different LAAO devices and future prospective.

Left atrial appendage closure with the Ultraseal device: Initial experience and mid-term follow-up

AIMS

Left atrial appendage (LAA) closure is considered an effective option in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) and contraindications to long-term oral anticoagulant (OAC) therapy. However, there are some concerns about safety of currently available devices. Our aim is to provide an initial assessment on feasibility and safety of the novel LAA closure Ultraseal device in patients with NVAF and contraindications to long-term OAC therapy.

METHODS

Twenty-three consecutive patients with NVAF undergoing Ultraseal device implantation between July 2016 and February 2018 at two institutions were included. All patients performed transesophageal echocardiography and computed tomography angiography prior to LAA closure.

RESULTS

Procedural success was achieved in all patients except two who experienced incorrect device deployment with incomplete LAA closure. Procedure duration halved from first to last procedure performed. The only periprocedural adverse events observed were a myocardial infarction and an in-hospital death due pneumonia. At mean follow-up (166 ± 80 days) all other patients were alive and free from major bleedings and ischaemic strokes.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that the Ultraseal device is a feasible option for LAA occlusion. Notably, the learning curve in this registry was fast, paralleled by extremely low complication rates. These results should be considered hypothesis generating and larger studies are mandatory.

Catheter Ablation versus Thoracoscopic Surgical Ablation in Long Standing Persistent Atrial Fibrillation (CASA-AF): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation is the commonest arrhythmia which raises the risk of heart failure, thromboembolic stroke, morbidity and death. Pharmacological treatments of this condition are focused on heart rate control, rhythm control and reduction in risk of stroke. Selective ablation of cardiac tissues resulting in isolation of areas causing atrial fibrillation is another treatment strategy which can be delivered by two minimally invasive interventions: percutaneous catheter ablation and thoracoscopic surgical ablation. The main purpose of this trial is to compare the effectiveness and safety of these two interventions.

METHODS/DESIGN

Catheter Ablation versus Thoracoscopic Surgical Ablation in Long Standing Persistent Atrial Fibrillation (CASA-AF) is a prospective, multi-centre, randomised controlled trial within three NHS tertiary cardiovascular centres specialising in treatment of atrial fibrillation. Eligible adults (n = 120) with symptomatic, long-standing, persistent atrial fibrillation will be randomly allocated to either catheter ablation or thoracoscopic ablation in a 1:1 ratio. Pre-determined lesion sets will be delivered in each treatment arm with confirmation of appropriate conduction block. All patients will have an implantable loop recorder (ILR) inserted subcutaneously immediately following ablation to enable continuous heart rhythm monitoring for at least 12 months. The devices will be programmed to detect episodes of atrial fibrillation and atrial tachycardia ≥ 30 s in duration. The patients will be followed for 12 months, completing appropriate clinical assessments and questionnaires every 3 months. The ILR data will be wirelessly transmitted daily and evaluated every month for the duration of the follow-up. The primary endpoint in the study is freedom from atrial fibrillation and atrial tachycardia at the end of the follow-up period.

DISCUSSION

The CASA-AF Trial is a National Institute for Health Research-funded study that will provide first-class evidence on the comparative efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of thoracoscopic surgical ablation and conventional percutaneous catheter ablation for long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation. In addition, the results of the trial will provide information on the effects on patients' quality of life.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN18250790 . Registered on 24 April 2015.

Left atrial appendage occlusion: 2016 in review

A significant body of data has emerged in the area of Percutaneous Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion (LAAO). In this article, we present an overview of the most notable publications along with a review of the most important publications on LAAO in 2016. We also present important historical data such as landmark clinical studies, review of most utilized occlusion devices, and important clinical studies that are underway.

Anesthetic Management of Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Endocardial and Epicardial Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion

Atrial fibrillation is the most common cardiac arrhythmia in adults affecting almost 6 million adults in the United States. The 2 most common comorbidities associated with atrial fibrillation are heart failure and thromboembolic events. Heart failure symptoms may be treated with rate control, antiarrhythmic medications or by catheter ablation. Unfortunately, despite optimal medical management, thromboembolic events still occur. Recently, there has been a great deal of interest and innovation in finding an alternative to chronic anticoagulation. Several percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion devices have been developed over recent years, some of which have proven to be noninferior to anticoagulation in preventing strokes in atrial fibrillation patients. The 2 most widely used left atrial appendage occlusion devices are the WATCHMAN (Atritech Inc, Plymouth, MN, USA) and the LARIAT (SentreHEART, Palo Alto, CA, USA) devices. After a detailed description of the procedures, the anesthetic considerations of each procedure and management of specific adverse events are discussed within this review.