Peridevice Leak After Transcatheter Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion

Left atrial appendage closure for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: current status and perspectives

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with an increased risk of stroke and systemic embolism, and the left atrial appendage (LAA) has been identified as a principal source of thromboembolism in these patients. While oral anticoagulation is the current standard of care, LAA closure (LAAC) emerges as an alternative or complementary treatment approach to reduce the risk of stroke or systemic embolism in patients with AF. Moderate-sized randomized clinical studies have provided data for the efficacy and safety of catheter-based LAAC, largely compared with vitamin K antagonists. LAA device iterations, advances in pre- and peri-procedural imaging, and implantation techniques continue to increase the efficacy and safety of LAAC. More data about efficacy and safety of LAAC have been collected, and several randomized clinical trials are currently underway to compare LAAC with best medical care (including non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants) in different clinical settings. Surgical LAAC in patients with AF undergoing cardiac surgery reduced the risk of stroke on background of anticoagulation therapy in the LAAOS III study. In this review, we describe the rapidly evolving field of LAAC and discuss recent clinical data, ongoing studies, open questions, and current limitations of LAAC.

Position Statement on Cardiac Computed Tomography Following Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion

Left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) is rapidly growing as valid stroke prevention therapy in atrial fibrillation. Cardiac imaging plays an instrumental role in preprocedural planning, procedural execution, and postprocedural follow-up. Recently, cardiac computed tomography (CCT) has made significant advancements, resulting in increasing use both preprocedurally and in outpatient follow-up. It provides a noninvasive, high-resolution alternative to the current standard, transesophageal echocardiography, and may display advantages in both the detection and characterization of device-specific complications, such as peridevice leak and device-related thrombosis. The implementation of CCT in the follow-up after LAAO has identified new findings such as hypoattenuated thickening on the atrial device surface and left atrial appendage contrast patency, which are not readily assessable on transesophageal echocardiography. Currently, there is a lack of standardization for acquisition and interpretation of images and consensus on definitions of essential findings on CCT in the postprocedural phase. This paper intends to provide a practical and standardized approach to both acquisition and interpretation of CCT after LAAO based on a comprehensive review of the literature and expert consensus among European and North American interventional and imaging specialists.

Long-term cardiac computed tomography follow-up after left atrial appendage occlusion

BACKGROUND

Left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) is performed increasingly, but long-term follow-up imaging data are lacking.

AIMS

The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and durability of the Amplatzer Amulet device >4 years after LAAO.

METHODS

This was a prospective observational cohort study including 52 patients implanted with the Amplatzer Amulet device at Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark. A >4-year follow-up cardiac computed tomography (CT) scan after LAAO was performed and compared with the results from the 2-month and 12-month scans. The primary outcome was left atrial appendage (LAA) sealing based on distal LAA contrast patency and peridevice leakage (PDL), stratified into complete occlusion (grade 0 [G0]) and grade 1-3 leakage (G1-3), respectively. Secondary outcomes were low- and high-grade hypoattenuated thickening (HAT), device-related thrombosis (DRT) and device durability.

RESULTS

The median (interquartile range [IQR]) follow-up time from LAAO to the latest CT scan was 5.8 years (4.5; 6.3). At 2-month (n=52), 12-month (n=27) and >4-year CT follow-ups (n=52), rates of both complete occlusion (33%, 37%, 35%) and G2 leaks (52%, 52%, 48%) remained stable. Rates of G1 leaks varied (14%, 4%, 6%) and G3 leaks rose (2%, 7%, 12%) from earliest to latest follow-up. The median left atrial (LA) volume increased from 127 mL (96; 176) to 144 mL (108; 182) and 147 mL (107; 193). No DRT was found. The structural device integrity was preserved.

CONCLUSIONS

This study indicates a stable LAA sealing status throughout the follow-up period, emphasising the importance of the procedural result in avoiding PDL. Few patients displayed PDL progression, which might partly be related to LA remodelling with increasing volume. The long-term device durability appears excellent. Larger studies are warranted to confirm these findings.

Computed tomography-based device-sizing in Amplatzer Amulet left atrial appendage occlusion

BACKGROUND

Amplatzer Amulet is a frequently used device for left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO). The current sizing protocol is based on the maximum diameter of the left atrial appendage (LAA) landing zone. However, mean, perimeter-, or area-derived diameter might be more accurate measures for device sizing.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of 150 consecutive patients undergoing LAAO is guided by pre-procedural cardiac CT. A total of 117 patients were included; 7 were excluded due to renal failure and 26 due to closure with the sandwich technique. The maximum, mean, area-, and perimeter-derived diameters of the landing zone were derived from pre-procedural cardiac CT scans, and their accuracy to predict the implanted device size was investigated. The predicted device size was determined based on the currently recommended sizing algorithm. Peri-device leak (PDL) was assessed (grade 1-3) along with the underlying mechanism.

RESULTS

Device-sizing accuracy was superior for mean, area-, and perimeter derived diameters compared with the maximal diameter, especially for eccentric landing zones. Mean difference between predicted and actually implanted device size was 0.08 mm (± 2.77), 0.30 mm (± 2.40), - 0.39 mm (± 2.43), and - 2.55 mm (± 2.57) across mean, area-derived, perimeter-derived, and maximal diameter, respectively. Grade 3 peri-device leak was seen in 8.5% of implants without a significant association to the eccentricity of the landing zone. The leading mechanism for PDL was device malalignment.

CONCLUSION

Our results indicate mean, area-, and perimeter-derived diameters of the device landing zone to perform similar and superior in device-sizing accuracy compared with the maximum diameter.

Feasibility of Amulet occluder implantation after failed left atrial appendage occlusion attempt: Insights from the EMERGE LAA postapproval study

BACKGROUND

Although expertise in left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) has grown, certain intricate anatomies may pose challenges, rendering them unsuitable for LAAO with the selected device.

OBJECTIVE

This analysis aimed to characterize outcomes of patients with prior failed percutaneous LAAO procedures who underwent a subsequent attempt with an Amulet occluder in the EMERGE LAA postapproval study.

METHODS

Patients enrolled in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry LAAO Registry who had an Amulet occluder implantation attempt between Food and Drug Administration approval (August 14, 2021) and June 30, 2023, were evaluated. A safety end point through 7 days or hospital discharge (whichever was later) and major adverse events through 45 days were reported.

RESULTS

A total of 8591 patients underwent attempted Amulet occluder implantation, of whom 244 patients had prior failed LAAO. Implantation success was 88.9% and 96.2% in patients with prior failed LAAO and index LAAO, respectively (P < .001). The safety composite end point was low, occurring in 1.6% and 0.8% of patients with prior failed LAAO and index LAAO, respectively (P = .148). Any major adverse event through 45 days occurred in 7.4% and 6.3% of prior failed LAAO and index LAAO patient cohorts, respectively (P = .497); most adverse events were similar between the groups (P > .05). At 45 days, peridevice leak ≤3 mm was achieved in >90% of patients in either group.

CONCLUSION

A high degree of implantation success with a low rate of adverse events can be achieved with the Amulet occluder. The findings imply that the dual occlusive mechanism Amulet occluder facilitates successful closure, even in challenging anatomic scenarios.

First Experience With Amulet in the United States: Early Insights From EMERGE LAA Postapproval Study

BACKGROUND

The Food and Drug Administration approved the Amulet occluder (Abbott) after demonstrating safety and effectiveness in the Amulet IDE (AMPLATZER Amulet LAA Occluder) trial.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the EMERGE Left Atrial Appendage study is to evaluate early postapproval outcomes of the Amulet occluder in the United States using data from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion Registry.

METHODS

Patients with a commercial Amulet occluder implant attempt between Food and Drug Administration approval (August 14, 2021) and December 31, 2022, were included. The safety composite endpoint included all-cause death, ischemic stroke, systemic embolism, or device/procedure-related events requiring open cardiac surgery or endovascular intervention between device implantation and 7 days or hospital discharge (whichever is later). Major adverse events through 45 days were also reported and stratified by operator experience (early [<10 cases], moderate [10-29 cases], and high [30+ cases]).

RESULTS

A total of 5,499 patients underwent attempted Amulet occluder implantation. Implant success was 95.8%, and complete closure was 97.2% post-left atrial appendage occlusion and 87.1% at 45 days. A safety composite endpoint event occurred in 0.76% patients. Any major adverse event occurred in 2.9% and 5.7% of patients in-hospital and through 45 days, respectively, driven by major bleeding and pericardial effusion (PE) requiring intervention. PE requiring surgery or percutaneous intervention decreased significantly with increasing experience both in-hospital (early vs high operator experience 1.8% vs 1.1%; P = 0.006) and at 45 days (2.3% vs 1.5%; P = 0.012).

CONCLUSIONS

The EMERGE Left Atrial Appendage study demonstrates favorable safety and effectiveness of the Amulet occluder in the real-world setting. More experienced operators had improved implant success and fewer PEs, suggesting a learning curve effect implanting this dual occlusive mechanism device.

Residual leaks following percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion and outcomes: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Residual leaks are not infrequent after left atrial appendage occlusion. However, there is still uncertainty regarding their prognostic implications. The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of residual leaks after left atrial appendage occlusion.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted until 19 February 2023. Residual leaks comprised peri-device leaks (PDLs) on transoesophageal echocardiography (TEE) or computed tomography (CT), as well as left atrial appendage patency on CT. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed to assess the clinical impact of residual leaks.

RESULTS

Overall 48 eligible studies (44 non-randomized/observational and 4 randomized studies) including 61 666 patients with atrial fibrillation who underwent left atrial appendage occlusion were analysed. Peri-device leak by TEE was present in 26.1% of patients. Computed tomography-based left atrial appendage patency and PDL were present in 54.9% and 57.3% of patients, respectively. Transoesophageal echocardiography-based PDL (i.e. any reported PDL regardless of its size) was significantly associated with a higher risk of thromboembolism [pooled odds ratio (pOR) 2.04, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.52-2.74], all-cause mortality (pOR 1.16, 95% CI: 1.08-1.24), and major bleeding (pOR 1.12, 95% CI: 1.03-1.22), compared with no reported PDL. A positive graded association between PDL size and risk of thromboembolism was noted across TEE cut-offs. For any PDL of >0, >1, >3, and >5 mm, the pORs for thromboembolism were 1.82 (95% CI: 1.35-2.47), 2.13 (95% CI: 1.04-4.35), 4.14 (95% CI: 2.07-8.27), and 4.44 (95% CI: 2.09-9.43), respectively, compared with either no PDL or PDL smaller than each cut-off. Neither left atrial appendage patency, nor PDL by CT was associated with thromboembolism (pOR 1.45 and 1.04, 95% CI: 0.84-2.50 and 0.52-2.07, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Peri-device leak detected by TEE was associated with adverse events, primarily thromboembolism. Residual leaks detected by CT were more frequent but lacked prognostic significance.

Impact of intracardiac echocardiography versus transesophageal echocardiography guidance on left atrial appendage occlusion procedures: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Intracardiac echocardiography (ICE) is increasingly used during left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) as an alternative to transesophageal echocardiography (TEE). The objective of this study is to evaluate the impact of ICE versus TEE guidance during LAAO on procedural characteristics and acute outcomes, as well the presence of peri-device leaks and residual septal defects during follow-up.

METHODS

All studies comparing ICE-guided versus TEE-guided LAAO were identified. The primary outcomes were procedural efficacy and occurrence of procedure-related complications. Secondary outcomes included lab efficiency (defined as a reduction in in-room time), procedural time, fluoroscopy time, and presence of peri-device leaks and residual interatrial septal defects (IASD) during follow-up.

RESULTS

Twelve studies (n = 5637) were included. There were no differences in procedural success (98.3% vs. 97.8%; OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.42-1.27, p = .27; I2  = 0%) or adverse events (4.5% vs. 4.4%; OR 0.81 95% CI 0.56-1.16, p = .25; I2  = 0%) between the ICE-guided and TEE-guided groups. ICE guidance reduced in in-room time (mean-weighted 28.6-min reduction in in-room time) without differences in procedural time or fluoroscopy time. There were no differences in peri-device leak (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.68-1.27, p = 0.64); however, an increased prevalence of residual IASD was observed with ICE-guided versus TEE-guided LAAO (46.3% vs. 34.2%; OR 2.23, 95% CI 1.05-4.75, p = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

ICE guidance is associated with similar procedural efficacy and safety, but could result in improved lab efficiency (as established by a significant reduction in in-room time). No differences in the rate of periprocedural leaks were found. A higher prevalence of residual interatrial septal defects was observed with ICE guidance.

3-Year Outcomes From the Amplatzer Amulet Left Atrial Appendage Occluder Randomized Controlled Trial (Amulet IDE)

BACKGROUND

The Amulet (Abbott) left atrial appendage occluder investigational device exemption trial is the largest randomized trial evaluating the safety and effectiveness of the Amulet left atrial appendage occluder compared with the Watchman 2.5 device (Boston Scientific) through 5 years.

OBJECTIVES

This analysis evaluated the device effect on 3-year outcomes in the Amulet investigational device exemption trial.

METHODS

The medication regimen and key clinical outcomes were reported through 3 years including: 1) the composite of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism (SE); 2) the composite of all strokes, SE, or cardiovascular (CV) death; 3) major bleeding; and 4) all-cause death and CV death.

RESULTS

A total of 1,878 patients at 108 sites were randomized. A significantly higher percentage of patients were free of oral anticoagulation usage at 3 years with Amulet (96.2%) vs Watchman (92.5%) (P < 0.01). Clinical outcomes were comparable for the composite of ischemic stroke or SE (5.0% vs 4.6%; P = 0.69); the composite of all strokes, SE, or CV death (11.1% vs 12.7%; P = 0.31); major bleeding (16.1% vs 14.7%; P = 0.46); all-cause death (14.6% vs 17.9%; P = 0.08); and CV death (6.6% vs 8.5%; P = 0.14) for Amulet and Watchman, respectively. Through 3 years, device factors (device-related thrombus or peridevice leak ≥3 mm) preceded ischemic stroke events and CV deaths more frequently in Watchman compared with Amulet patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The Amulet occluder demonstrated continued safety and effectiveness with over 96% free of oral anticoagulation usage through 3 years in a high-risk population compared to the Watchman device. (AMPLATZER Amulet LAA Occluder Trial [Amulet IDE]; NCT02879448).

Mechanisms, predictors, and evolution of severe peri-device leaks with two different left atrial appendage occluders

AIMS

Incomplete left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) due to peri-device leak (PDL) is a limitation of the therapy. The Amulet IDE trial is the largest randomized head-to-head trial comparing the Amulet and Watchman 2.5 LAAO devices with fundamentally different designs. The predictors and mechanistic factors impacting differences in PDLs within the Amulet IDE trial are assessed in the current analysis.

METHODS AND RESULTS

An independent core lab analysed all images for the presence or absence of severe PDL (>5 mm). The incidence, mechanistic factors, predictors using propensity score-matched controls, and evolution of severe PDLs through 18 months were assessed. Of the 1878 patients randomized in the trial, the Amulet occluder had significantly fewer severe PDLs than the Watchman device at 45 days (1.1 vs. 3.2%, P < 0.001) and 12 months (0.1 vs. 1.1%, P < 0.001). Off-axis deployment or missed lobes were leading mechanistic PDL factors in each device group. Larger left atrial appendage (LAA) dimensions including orifice diameter, landing zone diameter, and depth predicted severe PDL with the Watchman device, with no significant anatomical limitations noted with the Amulet occluder. Procedural and device implant predictors were found with the Amulet occluder attributed to the learning curve with the device. A majority of Watchman device severe PDLs did not resolve over time through 18 months.

CONCLUSION

The dual-occlusive Amplatzer Amulet LAA occluder provided improved LAA closure compared with the Watchman 2.5 device. Predictors and temporal observations of severe PDLs were identified in the Amulet IDE trial.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

https://clinicaltrials.gov Unique identifier NCT02879448.

Peridevice Leak After Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion: Incidence, Mechanisms, Clinical Impact, and Management

Left atrial appendage occlusion is an increasingly adopted stroke prevention strategy in patients with atrial fibrillation. However, peridevice leaks after the procedure are not infrequent and have recently been shown to confer a higher risk for subsequent ischemic events. In this paper, the authors review the available research on the frequency, mechanisms, clinical significance, and management of peridevice leak after percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion.