Device-Sizing and Associated Complications With Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion: Findings From the NCDR LAAO Registry

Risk factors, clinical implications, and management of peridevice leak following left atrial appendage closure: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) is a treatment modality for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). One of the potential complications of LAAC is a peri-device leak (PDL), which could potentially increase the risk of thromboembolism formation.

METHODS

This systematic review was done according to PRISMA guidelines. Using four databases, all primary studies through April 2022 that met selection criteria were included. Outcomes of interest were studies reporting on PDL characteristics, risk factors and management.

RESULTS

A total of 116 studies met selection criteria (97 original studies and 19 case reports/series). In the original studies (n = 30,133 patients), the weighted mean age was 72.0 ± 7.4 years (57% females) with a HAS-BLED and CHA2DS2-VASc weighted means of 2.8 ± 1.1 and 3.8 ± 1.3, respectively. The most common definition of PDL was based on size; 5 mm: major, 3-5 mm: moderate, < 1 mm minor, or trivial. Follow up time for PDL detection was 7.15 ± 9.0 months. 33% had PDL, irrespective of PDL severity/size, and only 0.9% had PDL of greater than 5 mm. The main risk factors for PDL development included lower degree of over-sizing, lower left ventricular ejection fraction, device/LAA shape mismatch, previous radiofrequency ablation, and male sex. The most common methods to screen for PDL included transesophageal echocardiogram and cardiac CT. PDL Management approaches include Amplatzer Patent Foramen Ovale occluder, Hookless ACP, Amplatzer vascular plug II, embolic coils, and detachable vascular coils; removal or replacement of the device; and left atriotomy.

CONCLUSION

Following LAAC, the emergence of a PDL is a significant complication to be aware of. Current evidence suggests possible risk factors that are worth assessing in-depth. Additional research is required to assess suitable candidates, timing, and strategies to managing patients with PDL.

Computed Tomography Scan Evidence for Left Atrial Appendage Short-Term Remodeling Following Percutaneous Occlusion: Impact of Device Oversizing

Background The interrelationships between left atrial appendage (LAA) dimensions and device following implantation are unknown. We aimed to analyze the impact of Watchman device implantation on LAA dimensions following its percutaneous closure and potential predictors of remodeling. Methods and Results All consecutive LAA closure procedures performed at 2 centers between November 2017 and December 2020 were included in the WATCH-DUAL (Watchman 2.5 Versus Watchman FLX in a Dual-Center Left Atrial Appendage Closure Cohort) registry. This study included patients who had pre- and postintervention computed tomography scan analysis. The LAA and device dimensions were measured in a centralized core lab by 3-dimensional computed tomography scan reconstruction methods, focusing on the device landing zone. This analysis included 104 patients (age, 76.0 [range, 72.0-83.0] years; 72% men; 53% Watchman FLX; 47% Watchman 2.5). The baseline characteristics were comparable between Watchman 2.5 and Watchman FLX groups, except for the higher use of oversizing in the latter group. The median delay for computed tomography control was 49 (range, 43-64) days. The landing zone area (median, 446 [range, 363-523] versus 290 [222-366] mm2; P<0.001) and minimal diameter (median, 23.0 [range, 20.7-24.8] versus 16.7 [14.7-19.4] mm; P<0.001) significantly increased after implantation. The absolute (median, 157 [range, 98-220] versus 85 [18-148] mm2, P<0.001) and relative (median, 50% [range, 32%-79%] versus 26% [4%-50%]; P<0.001) increases in landing zone area were more pronounced in patients with oversized device. Baseline LAA dimensions were smaller, landing zone eccentricity larger, and oversized device more frequent in patients with significant overexpansion compared with the others. Conclusions LAA dimensions increased at the site of the Watchman prosthesis after implantation, suggesting a local positive remodeling after the procedure. This phenomenon was more pronounced in the case of oversized devices.