Left atrial appendage occlusion for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation

Displacement of occluder after left atrial appendage closure: A case report

Key Clinical Message

Atrial fibrillation is closely associated with thrombotic events. In non-valvular atrial fibrillation, 90% of thrombi are formed by the left atrial appendage. Left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAC) can effectively prevent the detachment of left atrial appendage thrombus during atrial fibrillation, thereby reducing the risk of long-term disability or death caused by thromboembolic events. However, the identification and management of complications in LAAC are also very important.

Abstract

The efficacy and safety of left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAC) in preventing non-valvular atrial fibrillation stroke have been confirmed by multiple randomized controlled and registered studies, and have been recommended by several guidelines for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation at high-risk of stroke. We reported an 80-year-old male patient with persistent atrial fibrillation. The patient underwent left atrial appendage closure surgery due to high risk of embolism and bleeding. On the second day after surgery, echocardiography showed displacement of the left atrial appendage occluder. Immediately perform removal of left atrial appendage occlude and left atrial appendage occlusion on the same day, and the patient was discharged on the fifth day after surgery without any special circumstances. This case demonstrates the feasibility and important clinical significance of using interventional surgery to remove the left atrial appendage occluder after displacement in clinical practice.

Overcoming barriers for left atrial appendage thrombus: a systematic review of left atrial appendage closure

BACKGROUND

Approximately 90% of intracardial thrombi originate from the left atrial appendage in non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients. Even with anticoagulant therapy, left atrial appendage thrombus (LAAT) still occurs in 8% of patients. While left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) could be a promising alternative, the current consensus considers LAAT a contraindication to LAAC. However, the feasibility and safety of LAAC in patients with LAAT have yet to be determined.

METHODS

This systematic review synthesizes published data to explore the feasibility and safety of LAAC for patients with LAAT.

RESULTS

This study included a total of 136 patients with LAATs who underwent successful LAAC. The Amulet Amplatzer device was the most frequently utilized device (48.5%). Among these patients, 77 (56.6%) had absolute contraindications to anticoagulation therapy. Cerebral protection devices were utilized by 47 patients (34.6%). Transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) is the primary imaging technique used during the procedure. Warfarin and novel oral anticoagulants were the main anticoagulant medications used prior to the procedure, while dual antiplatelet therapy was primarily used post-procedure. During a mean follow-up period of 13.2 ± 11.5 months, there was 1 case of fatality, 1 case of stroke, 3 major bleeding events, 3 instances of device-related thrombus, and 8 cases of peri-device leakage.

CONCLUSIONS

This review highlights the preliminary effectiveness and safety of the LAAC procedure in patients with persistent LAAT. Future large-scale RCTs with varied LAAT characteristics and LAAC device types are essential for evidence-based decision-making in clinical practice.

Safety of Amulet Left Atrial Appendage Occluder and Watchman Device for Left Atrial Appendage Closure in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Left atrial appendage (LAA) closure is an alternative to chronic anticoagulation for stroke prevention in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Multiple devices were used for LAA closure, with the Amplatzer Amulet LAA Occluder (Abbott, Chicago, IL, USA) and Watchman device (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA, USA) being the most commonly used in clinical practice. In August 2021, the FDA approved the use of the Amplatzer Amulet LAA Occluder. There is still a knowledge gap in the safety profile of the Amplatzer Amulet LAA Occluder device in comparison to the Watchman device.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess and compare the safety profile peri-procedure and post-procedure between the Amplatzer Amulet LAA Occluder and Watchman devices.

METHODS

Patients who underwent LAA closure using Watchman or Amulet devices from July 2015 to August 2020 at the American University of Beirut Medical Center were included in the analysis. Primary endpoints included peri-operative and post-procedural complications (thromboembolic events, bleeding complications, vascular access complications, pericardial effusion/tamponade, device positional complications and in-hospital death).

RESULTS

The study included 37 patients (21 had Watchman devices, 16 had Amplatzer Amulet LAA Occluder devices, and 28 were men, mean age 76.57 ± 9.3 years). Seven patients developed post-procedural iatrogenic atrial septal defects (four in the Watchman group vs three in the Amulet group, p-value=0.982). Three patients developed pericardial effusion (one in the Watchman vs two in the Amulet group, p-value=0.394). Only one patient developed peri-device leak (one in the Watchman group vs none in the Amulet group, p-value=0.283). One device could not be deployed (one in the Amulet group vs none in the Watchman group, p-value=0.191). None of the patients developed in-hospital death, cardiac tamponade, device embolism, device thrombosis, stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA), cranial bleeding, or arrhythmias after the procedure. The rate of peri-operative complications was similar between both groups. Both groups displayed low rates of adverse events in the peri-operative and post-operative periods.

CONCLUSION

There was no significant difference in the safety profile of Amplatzer Amulet LAA Occluders and Watchman devices. There was a low incidence of peri-operative and post-operative adverse events with the implanted devices.

Transseptal puncture for left atrial ablation: risk factors for cardiac tamponade and a proposed causative classification system

Aims

Cardiac tamponade is a high morbidity complication of transseptal puncture (TSP). We examined the associations of TSP‐related cardiac tamponade (TRCT) for all patients undergoing left atrial ablation at our center from 2016 to 2020.

Methods and Results

Patient and procedural variables were extracted retrospectively. Cases of cardiac tamponade were scrutinized to adjudicate TSP culpability. Adjusted multivariate analysis examined predictors of TRCT. A total of 3239 consecutive TSPs were performed; cardiac tamponade occurred in 51 patients (incidence: 1.6%) and was adjudicated as TSP‐related in 35 (incidence: 1.1%; 68.6% of all tamponades). Patients of above‐median age [odds ratio (OR): 2.4 (1.19–4.2), p = .006] and those undergoing re‐do procedures [OR: 1.95 (1.29–3.43, p = .042] were at higher risk of TRCT. Of the operator‐dependent variables, choice of transseptal needle (Endrys vs. Brockenbrough, p > .1) or puncture sheath (Swartz vs. Mullins vs. Agilis vs. Vizigo vs. Cryosheath, all p > .1) did not predict TRCT. Adjusting for operator, equipment and demographics, failure to cross the septum first pass increased TRCT risk [OR: 4.42 (2.45–8.2), p = .001], whilst top quartile operator experience [OR: 0.4 (0.17–0.85), p = .002], transoesophageal echocardiogram [TOE prevalence: 26%, OR: 0.51 (0.11–0.94), p = .023], and use of the SafeSept transseptal guidewire [OR: 0.22 (0.08–0.62), p = .001] reduced TRCT risk. An increase in transseptal guidewire use over time (2016: 15.6%, 2020: 60.2%) correlated with an annual reduction in TRCT (R² = 0.72, p < .001) and was associated with a relative risk reduction of 70%.

Conclusions

During left atrial ablation, the risk of TRCT was reduced by operator experience, TOE‐guidance, and use of a transseptal guidewire, and was increased by patient age, re‐do procedures, and failure to cross the septum first pass.

Atrial Thrombosis Caused by a Dislocated Left Atrial Appendage Closure Device After Mitral Valve Replacement

A patient with a left atrial appendage occlusion device underwent mitral valve replacement. Later, the patient developed a left atrial thrombosis with thromboembolic myocardial infarction caused by a dislocation of the occlusion device. Exclusion of the device and non-device-based appendage occlusion may have prevented the patient from experiencing postoperative complications (Level of Difficulty: Intermediate.).

Evaluation of anticoagulation use and subsequent stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation after empiric surgical left atrial appendage closure: A retrospective case-control study

BACKGROUND

Surgical exclusion of the left atrial appendage (LAA) can be performed at the time of cardiac operation as a potential modality to decrease cardioembolic risk attributable to atrial fibrillation (AF), but it remains unclear if this decreases stroke incidence. Furthermore, it is not known whether LAA exclusion impacts the decision to discontinue anticoagulation impacting subsequent stroke risk.

HYPOTHESIS

LAA exclusion does not significantly alter subsequent anticoagulation use or stroke incidence.

METHODS

We studied 124 patients from Olmsted County with prior history of AF who underwent cardiac surgery at our institution between 1993 and 2015. Patients were divided into two groups on the basis of LAA exclusion and matched (1:1) according to 16 pretreatment variables using propensity scores obtained from a logistic regression model. Outcome data collected through chart review for survival, stroke, and the presence and duration of anticoagulation were compared between groups.

RESULTS

The proportion of patients receiving anticoagulation at discharge and at 5 years was not significantly different between patients who underwent LAA exclusion and those who did not; 90% vs 81%, P = 0.156, 48% vs 49%, P = 0.722, respectively. On Kaplan-Meier analysis there were no significant differences in time free from stroke between cases and controls. Patients discharged on oral anticoagulation (OAC) had significantly lower risk of stroke (HR = 0.19, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.06-0.59, P = 0.004), independent of whether LAA closure was used.

CONCLUSION

LAA exclusion did not appear to reduce early or late stroke. Only OAC was associated with a reduction in stroke risk, underscoring the need for continued anticoagulation in high-risk patients.

Left atrial appendage occlusion for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a commonly sustained atrial arrhythmia with associated morbidity and mortality. AF is associated with increased risk of thromboembolism and stroke, requiring use of anticoagulation. Anticoagulation decreases the risk of stroke but is associated with a higher risk of bleeding, necessitating discontinuation in some patients. The left atrial appendage is the likely source of thrombus in the majority of patients with AF. This has led to the development of left atrial appendage occlusion as a means to reduce stroke risk in patients who have a contraindication to long-term anticoagulation. Multiple implantable devices have surfaced in the last few years, with some promising prospects. The main purpose of this review is to highlight the indications and use of these devices for left atrial appendage occlusion.