Real-world experience comparing two common left atrial appendage closure devices

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.

Comparative Profiles of the WATCHMAN™ and Amplatzer™ Cardiac Plug/Amplatzer™ Amulet™ Devices for Left Atrial Appendage Closure in Non-valvular Atrial Fibrillation: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a prevalent cardiac arrhythmia marked by irregular and frequent tachycardic rhythms in the atria, affecting 1%-2% of the general population. The WATCHMAN™ device from Boston Scientific (Marlborough, MA, USA) and the Amplatzer™ Amulet™ device from Abbott (Chicago, IL, USA) are two devices used globally for left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) in non-valvular AF. A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Elsevier's ScienceDirect literature databases to identify studies comparing the WATCHMAN™ procedure with Amulet™ device implantation for LAAC in patients with AF. The analyses were conducted using the random-effects model. A total of 20 studies were identified, with 18 falling into the category of observational studies and 2 being randomized controlled trials. A total of 6310 participants were included in this meta-analysis, with 3198 individuals (50.68%) assigned to the WATCHMAN™ procedure group and 3112 individuals (49.32%) allocated to the Amplatzer™ Cardiac Plug (ACP) group. The analysis revealed a higher risk of stroke associated with the WATCHMAN™ technique (relative risk [RR], 1.14), albeit without statistical significance. Conversely, the WATCHMAN™ approach led to a significantly lower risk of cardiac death (RR, 0.44; P = .04). Notably, the risks of all-cause mortality (RR, 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73-1.08; I 2 = 0%; P = .25) and major bleeding (RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.65-1.33; I 2 = 31%; P = .70) were clinically reduced with the WATCHMAN™ procedure, although statistical significance was not achieved. Compared to Amulet™ device implantation, WATCHMAN™ device implantation decreased the risk of cardiac mortality, while the risks of stroke, systemic embolism, all-cause mortality, and major bleeding were not statistically significant.

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.

Safety and efficacy of percutaneous Watchman 2.5 device versus Amplatzer Amulet for left atrial appendage closure in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation: A systematic review and study-level meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

In patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF), mechanical occlusion of the left atrial appendage (LAA) using a permanently implanted device may be an effective alternative to oral anti-coagulants (OAC). To facilitate left atrial appendage closure (LAAC), multiple percutaneous devices have been proposed. Watchman Generation 2.5 and Amplatzer Amulet are the two most popular used devices for preventing stroke in patients with NVAF. We sought to compare safety and efficacy outcomes between Watchman 2.5 and Amplatzer Amulet in patients undergoing LAAC procedure.

METHODS

We carried out a comprehensive and systematic search of the databases PubMed and Scopus, for all studies that compared the safety and efficacy of Watchman 2.5 and Amplatzer Amulet devices, from inception, till June 2023. We performed the statistical analysis using Review Manager (V.5.4.1 Cochrane Collaboration, London, United Kingdom). The safety outcomes of interest included device success, device-related thrombus, device embolization perioperatively and at follow-up, perioperative pericardial perfusion events, and perioperative cardiac tamponade events. Efficacy outcomes were all-cause mortality perioperatively and at follow-up, cardiovascular (CV) mortality at follow-up, stroke, major and minor bleeding events at follow-up, transient ischemic attack (TIA) in follow-up period, thromboembolic events in follow-up period, and peri-device leakage in perioperative period. All data was analysed using a random-effects model, and presented as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (95%CIs).

RESULTS

Regarding safety outcomes, device success was non-significantly reduced in Watchman group when compared with Amulet (RR 0.99, p = 0.57; I2 = 34%). In contrast, device-related thrombus was non-significantly increased in Watchman 2.5 group in comparison to Amulet (RR 1.44, p = 0.11; I2 = 0%). There was no significant difference between the devices in terms of device embolization in the perioperative (RR 0.36, p = 0.38; I2 = 22%) and follow-up (RR 2.24, p = 0.13; I2 = 0%) periods. Likewise, there was no significant difference in the risks of pericardial effusion (RR 0.98, p = 0.98; I2 = 0%), and cardiac tamponade (RR 0.65, p = 0.76; I2 = 62%) perioperatively. Regarding efficacy outcomes, no significant difference was observed in all-cause mortality between devices perioperatively (RR 0.51, p = 0.32; I2 = 0%) and at follow-up (RR 1.08, p = 0.56; I2 = 0%). CV-mortality was non-significantly reduced in Watchman group when compared with Amulet (RR 0.57, p = 0.20; I2 = 0%). The Amulet device was not superior to the Watchman device in terms of stroke at follow-up (RR 1.13, p = 0.63; I2 = 0%). Sub-group analysis showed comparable ischaemic and haemorrhagic stroke events between two devices. Furthermore, at follow-up, there was no significant difference in major (RR 1.06, p = 0.63; I2 = 0%) and minor bleeding events (RR 1.81, p = 0.17; I2 = 0%) between the two devices. No difference was observed for trans-ischemic attack (RR 1.89, p = 0.24; I2 = 0%) and thromboembolic events (RR 0.96, p = 0.96; I2 = 0%) at follow-up. No significant difference was observed between devices for peri-device leakage in perioperative period (RR 2.16, p = 0.05; I2 = 0%).

CONCLUSION

The data suggested that LAAC is safe and efficacious procedure irrespective of device used, with generally low complication rates. Watchman generation 2.5 remains non-superior to Amplatzer Amulet in terms of safety and efficacy outcomes.

Clinical efficacy and safety comparison of Watchman device versus ACP/Amulet device for percutaneous left atrial appendage closure in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: A study-level meta-analysis of clinical trials

Left atrial appendage occlusion is not inferior to oral anticoagulants in the prevention of stroke in several randomized controlled trials. However, the clinical efficacy and safety comparison of the Watchman and amplatzer cardiac plug (ACP)/Amulet devices for percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation was controversial. A database search was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Clinicaltrials.gov for trials that compared Watchman device vs ACP/Amulet device. The effective outcomes were stroke and systemic embolism. Safety outcomes were all-cause death, cardiovascular death, and major bleeding. Device-related complications included device-related thrombus (DRT), peri-device leaks (PDL > 5 mm). A total of 19 articles involving 6224 patients were included in the present study. The Watchman and ACP/Amulet groups comprised 3267 and 2957 patients, respectively. No statistically significant differences were detected in the stroke (odd ratio [OR]:1.24, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.92-1.67, p = .17, I²  = 0), systemic embolism (OR:1.10, 95% CI: 0.51-2.35, p = .81, I²  = 0%), all-cause death (OR:0.97, 95% CI: 0.80-1.18, p = .77, I²  = 1%), cardiogenic death (OR:0.99, 95% CI: 0.77-1.29, p = .96, I²  = 0%), major bleeding (OR:1.18, 95% CI: 0.98-1.43, p = .08, I²  = 25%). DRT (OR:1.48, 95% CI: 1.06-2.06, p = .02, I²  = 0%) and PDL > 5 mm (OR:2.57, 95% CI: 1.63-4.04, p < .0001, I²  = 0%) were significantly lower in ACP/Amulet group compared to Watchman group. The effective and safety outcomes were comparable between two groups. ACP/Amulet group had significantly lower rates of DRT and PDL > 5 mm than Watchman group.

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.

Adverse events and stroke prevention by interventional left atrial appendage occlusion in patients with low CHA2 DS2 -VASc score-results from the multicenter German LAARGE registry

BACKGROUND

Interventional left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) is routinely performed in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and contraindications to standard anticoagulation.

AIMS

We investigated its role in patients at low stroke risk, and compared the effectiveness and safety in patients with low versus high risk.

METHODS

LAARGE is a prospective registry depicting the clinical reality of LAAO. LAAO was conducted with different standard commercial devices, and follow-up period was 1 year. Patients with started procedure and documented CHA₂ DS₂ -VASc score were selected from the whole database.

RESULTS

A total of 638 patients from 38 centers were divided into CHA₂ DS₂ -VASc score ≤2, i.e., low-risk group (10.2%), and >2, i.e., high-risk group (89.8%). The latter had a pronounced cardiovascular risk profile and preceding strokes (0% vs. 23.9%; p < 0.001). Implantation success was consistently high (97.6%), frequencies of intrahospital major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (0% vs. 0.5%) and other major complications (4.6% vs. 4.0%) were low (each p = not significant [NS]). Numerous moderate complications were also observed in the low-risk patients (12.3% vs. 9.4%; p = NS). Frequencies of nonfatal strokes (0% vs. 0.7%) and severe bleedings (0% vs. 0.7%) were low (each p = NS). In a specig analysis, patients at very high risk of stroke (i.e., CHA₂ DS₂ -VASc score >4) did not have increased rates of complications or nonfatal strokes in the first year after the procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Low-risk patients had no nonfatal strokes and major bleedings within 1 year after hospital discha but had unexpectedly high rates of moderate procedural complications. The indication in these patients should be strictly defined based on an individual benefit-risk assessment.

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.

One year outcome and analysis of peri-device leak of left atrial appendage occlusion devices

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of peri-device leak (PDL) of left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) devices has been previously reported. However, there have been only few data that compared different existing devices. The aim of this study was to assess the incidence of PDL with both devices WATCHMAN®, Boston Scientific and AMPLATZER Amulet®, Abbott Laboratories and to evaluate the clinical outcome at 12 months.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent LAAO between January 2018 and 2020 were randomly assigned to either WATCHMAN or AMPLATZER Amulet implantation based on a systematic 2-week alternation between both devices. LAA measurements were assessed using cardiac computed tomography angiography (CCTA) prior to and transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) during the procedure. At 8 weeks post-LAAO, patients underwent TEE and/or CCTA to identify the presence of PDL and/or device-related complications. Patients were then followed for 12 months to identify major adverse cardiovascular/embolic events.

RESULTS

The cohort consisted of 51 patients (25 WATCHMAN, 26 AMPLATZER Amulet; mean age 76 ± 7 years; male gender 76%). Both groups were identically matched for demographics, comorbidities, and indication for LAAO. There were 19 patients who had PDL (13 WATCHMAN vs. 6 AMPLATZER Amulet, P-value = 0.033). Of them, 8 (15%) patients had significant PDL (7 WATCHMAN vs. 1 AMPLATZER Amulet, P-value = 0.018). On CCTA, the landing zone maximal diameter of the AMPLATZER Amulet device had the strongest correlation with the final deployed device size (Spearman's rho 0.92, P-value < 0.0001). In the multivariate analysis, male gender and device type were independent predictors of any PDL (P-values 0.016 and 0.031, respectively). On a mean follow-up of 12 months, the total number of events was more prevalent in the WATCHMAN group (P-value 0.008), but the incidence of cardio-embolic events reached borderline significance (16% vs. 0%, P-value = 0.051).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients who underwent LAAO, almost 15% had significant PDL with the majority belonging to the WATCHMAN group. Still, larger studies are warranted to evaluate its effectiveness in stroke prevention.

Reduced plasma level of basic fibroblast growth factor is associated with incomplete device endothelialization at six months following left atrial appendage closure

Objectives

To investigate whether inflammatory and growth factors (IGFs) were associated with incomplete device endothelialization (IDE) at 6 months after successful left atrial appendage closure (LAAC).

Background

IDE after LAAC is correlated with device-related thrombus (DRT) formation and subsequent thromboembolic events. However, biomarkers for early detection of IDE remain lacking.

Methods

Plasma levels of IGFs including basic fibroblast growth factor (bFGF), platelet derived growth factor (PDGF), stromal cell derived factor (SDF)-1a, transforming growth factor (TGF)-β₁, vascular growth factor receptor-1 (VEGF-R₁) and von Willebrand factor (vWF) were determined using ELISA kits in 55 consecutive patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) at 6 months after LAAC with Watchman devices. The status of device endothelialization was assessed by transesophageal echocardiography and cardiac CT.

Results

IDE and complete device endothelialization(CDE)were detected in 38 and 17 patients, respectively. Among the six IGFs, only plasma level of bFGF was significantly lower in patients with IDE compared to those with CDE (303.49 ± 246.84 vs. 556.31 ± 197.84 pg/ml, p < 0.001). C-statistics of plasma bFGF for discriminating patients with IDE from those with CDE was 0.785 (95 % CI: 0.663–0.907, p < 0.001), with a cut-off value of 440.52pg/ml (sensitivity 0.765; specificity 0.789). Multivariate logistic regression model showed that lower bFGF was an independent factor for IDE (OR: 11.752, 95 % CI: 2.869–48.144, P = 0.001). bFGF improved the classification of patients (NRI: 0.677,95 % CI: 0.320–1.033, p = 0.004).

Conclusions

Reduced plasma bFGF level confers an increased risk for IDE after LAAC. Further prospective studies are warranted to examine if bFGF could serve as a biomarker for IDE post LAAC.

Discriminating factors excluding patients from a catheter-based left atrial appendage closure and an outcome analysis of non-intervened and intervened patients

Introduction

The catheter-based left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) has evolved as an alternative to oral anticoagulation (OAC) among non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) patients in whom long-term OAC is contraindicated. In daily practice, however, a sizeable number of patients who have been referred for an LAAC do not receive this intervention. This study aimed primarily to investigate the factors deterring the practice of an LAAC in referred AF patients, and secondarily to compare the complication rates of intervened patients with those who had refused the intervention within 1 year.

Material and methods

This retrospective single-centre study includes 200 patients. After a thoroughly conducted clinical selection process, 161 of these patients (80.5%) were excluded from receiving an LAAC intervention.

Results

An analysis comparing these patients to those receiving an LAAC reveales that a higher proportion of intervened patients had suffered a prior gastrointestinal bleeding (48.7 vs. 28.0%; p = 0.013) as well as a haemorrhagic stroke (12.8 vs. 2.5%; p = 0.015), and was not anticoagulated at the time of presentation (35.9 vs. 14.9%; p = 0.006). The main reason for not conducting the procedure was patient refusal (62.1%) followed by multimorbidity (16.8%). The annual rate of ischaemic strokes and bleedings among patients refusing the intervention was 2.1% and 29.5%, respectively, and this was not statistically different from the intervened patients (each p > 0.05).

Conclusions

The reasons why patients did not undergo the catheter-based LAAC were mainly reluctance for the procedure and multimorbidity. Furthermore, it could be assumed that the potential benefit of the LAAC may not be realised within the first year.

Meta-Analysis Comparing WatchmanTM and Amplatzer Devices for Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation

Background: For patients with atrial fibrillation who are at high risk for bleeding or who cannot tolerate oral anticoagulation, left atrial appendage (LAA) closure represents an alternative therapy for reducing risk for thromboembolic events. Objectives: To compare the efficacy and safety of the Amplatzer and Watchman^TM LAA closure devices. Methods: A meta-analysis was performed of studies comparing the safety and efficacy outcomes of the two devices. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to appraise study quality. Results: Six studies encompassing 614 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Overall event rates were low for both devices. No significant differences between the devices were found in safety outcomes (i.e., pericardial effusion, cardiac tamponade, device embolization, air embolism, and vascular complications) or in the rates of all-cause mortality, cardiac death, stroke/transient ischemic attack, or device-related thrombosis. The total bleeding rate was significantly lower in the Watchman^TM group (Log OR = -0.90; 95% CI = -1.76 to -0.04; p = 0.04), yet no significant differences was found when the bleeding rate was categorized into major and minor bleeding. Total peridevice leakage rate and insignificant peridevice leakage rate were significantly higher in the Watchman^TM group (Log OR = 1.32; 95% CI = 0.76 to 1.87; p < 0.01 and Log OR = 1.11; 95% CI = 0.50 to 1.72; p < 0.01, respectively). However, significant peridevice leakages were similar in both the devices. Conclusions: The LAA closure devices had low complication rates and low event rates. Efficacy and safety were similar between the systems, except for a higher percentage of insignificant peridevice leakages in the Watchman^TM group. A randomized controlled trial comparing both devices is underway, which may provide more insight on the safety and efficacy outcomes comparison of the devices.

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.

Combined pulmonary vein stenosis stenting and left atrial appendage occlusion in a patient with hemoptysis after atrial fibrillation ablation

Background

Pulmonary vein stenosis (PVS) after radiofrequency ablation for non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) is an uncommon but serious complication. PVS stenting can rapidly restore pulmonary flow and improve symptoms with long-term low incidence of restenosis. However, high risk of thrombosis remains if AF is recurrent, especially for CHA₂DS₂-VASc > 2.

Case presentation

A 67-year-old man with diabetes, hypertension and a history of stroke underwent radiofrequency pulmonary vein isolation for persistent AF 1 year ago. Six months later he developed recurrent respiratory infection and massive hemoptysis. Computed tomography pulmonary angiography revealed severe left pulmonary vein stenosis. Simultaneous percutaneous PVS stenting and left atrial appendage occlusion were performed to resolve recurrent hemoptysis and prevent stroke. The clinical follow-up indicated a good short and mid-term result with significant improvement of symptoms.

Conclusions

Simultaneous PVS stenting and left atrial appendage occlusion is feasible and effective in patients with recurrence of AF and hemoptysis induced by radiofrequency ablation for AF.

Cerebrovascular events, bleeding complications and device related thrombi in atrial fibrillation patients with chronic kidney disease and left atrial appendage closure with the WATCHMAN™ device

BACKGROUND

Impaired renal function increases the bleeding risk, leading to a conservative prescription and frequent discontinuation of oral anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Interventional left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) might be an alternative therapeutic strategy for these patients.

METHODS

We aimed to prospectively assess cerebrovascular (CE) and bleeding events, as well as peri-procedural and long-term complications in a cohort of consecutive patients undergoing interventional LAAC using the WATCHMAN™ device, with focus on CKD patients.

RESULTS

One hundred and eighty-nine consecutive patients undergoing interventional LAAC were included in this analysis; 171 (90.5%) patients had a reduced estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR; patients for each CKD stage: II = 66; IIIa = 32; IIIb = 43; IV = 18; V = 12). During a follow-up of 310 patient years three (1.0%) patients suffered a CE (two strokes, one transitory ischemic attack) and five (1.6%) other ones a bleeding complication. The observed stroke rate was more than two-thirds and the bleeding risk more than half lower than expected. Device related thrombi (DRT) were detected in twelve (6.5%) patients; women had significantly more DRT than men (12.5% vs. 2.6%; p = 0.009). Patients with an eGFR< 30 ml/min/1.73m2 showed a trend to a higher DRT rate as compared to the opposite group (13.3% vs. 5.1%; p = 0.10). Thrombus resolved with temporary oral anticoagulation therapy in ten patients without sequelae; thrombus consolidation was confirmed by serial TEE controls in the remaining two patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Atrial fibrillation patients with CKD have low CE and bleeding rates after LAAC with the WATCHMAN™ device. DRT risk is higher in female and patients with severe CKD. More frequent post-interventional TEE controls might be justified for early DRT detection and safe management of patients at high DRT risk.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

(German Clinical Trials Register ID: DRKS00 010768 ; Registration Date 07.07.2016).