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

Safety and efficacy of the Amplatzer amulet and watchman2.5 for left atrial appendage occlusion: a Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) is an alternative to oral anticoagulation (OAC) to decrease the risk of stroke in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF); however, certain complications remain a concern. Amplatzer Amulet and Watchman are the two most popular used devices for preventing stroke in patients with NVAF. We assessed the safety and efficacy of LAAO using the Amplatzer Amulet and Watchman.

METHODS

A meta-analysis was conducted to compare the safety and efficacy outcomes associated with the use of the Amplatzer Amulet and Watchman 2.5. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale has been utilized to assess the quality of study.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis includes seven studies involving 2,926 patients (1,418 patients with an amulet and 1,508 with a Watchman 2.5). Generally, adverse event rates for both systems were minimal. No significant differences between the two devices were found in safety (pericardial effusion, device embolization, and cardiac tamponade) or efficacy outcomes (death, TIA, stroke, major/minor bleeding, device leak, and thromboembolic events).

CONCLUSIONS

The data suggest LAAO is a safe procedure, regardless of which device was used. LAAO devices generally have low complication rates. Outcomes were comparable between the two groups with no significant differences in their safety or efficacy. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Comparison of Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion versus Non-Vitamin-K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulation in High-Risk Atrial Fibrillation: An Update

Transcatheter left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) is non-inferior to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in preventing thromboembolic events in atrial fibrillation (AF). Non-vitamin K antagonists (NOACs) have an improved safety profile over VKAs; however, evidence regarding their effect on cardiovascular and neurological outcomes relative to LAAO is limited. Up-to-date randomized trials or propensity-score-matched data comparing LAAO vs. NOACs in high-risk patients with AF were pooled in our study. A total of 2849 AF patients (LAAO: 1368, NOACs: 1481, mean age: 75 ± 7.5 yrs, 63.5% male) were enrolled. The mean CHA2DS2-VASc score was 4.3 ± 1.7, and the mean HAS-BLED score was 3.4 ± 1.2. The baseline characteristics were comparable between the two groups. In the LAAO group, the success rate of device implantation was 98.8%. During a mean follow-up of 2 years, as compared with NOACs, LAAO was associated with a significant reduction of ISTH major bleeding (p = 0.0002). There were no significant differences in terms of ischemic stroke (p = 0.61), ischemic stroke/thromboembolism (p = 0.63), ISTH major and clinically relevant minor bleeding (p = 0.73), cardiovascular death (p = 0.63), and all-cause mortality (p = 0.71). There was a trend toward reduction of combined major cardiovascular and neurological endpoints in the LAAO group (OR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.64-1.11, p = 0.12). In conclusion, for high-risk AF patients, LAAO is associated with a significant reduction of ISTH major bleeding without increased ischemic events, as compared to "contemporary NOACs". The present data show the superior role of LAAO over NOACs among high-risk AF patients in terms of reduction of major bleeding; however, more randomized controlled trials are warranted.