Catheter ablation in combined procedures is associated with residual leaks

Comparing safety and efficacy: MemoLefort versus watchman for left atrial appendage closure

BACKGROUND

The MemoLefort is a new plug occluder for left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). This study compares the safety and efficacy of MemoLefort and the well-established Watchman occluder for LAAC.

METHODS

Between January 2021 and September 2022, a cohort of 189 consecutive patients who underwent LAAC with MemoLefort or Watchman at The Second Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University were included. Patients with MemoLefort or Watchman devices were compared in terms of the primary safety endpoints encompassing major periprocedural complications and major bleeding events at follow-up, the primary efficacy endpoint of all-cause stroke, systemic embolism and cardiovascular/unexplained death, and the combined hazard endpoint, a composite of all the above-mentioned hazards.

RESULTS

Of the MemoLefort group (n = 83) and Watchman group (n = 106), the mean age, CHA2DS2-VASc score, and HAS-BLED score were 67.6 ± 9.2 vs. 69.0 ± 10.6 years, 3.9 ± 1.9 vs. 3.8 ± 1.9, and 1.6 ± 1.0 vs. 1.7 ± 1.2, respectively. After a median follow-up duration of 198 (99-329) vs. 334 (171-497) days, the primary endpoints of efficacy [2/49, 4.1% (MemoLefort) vs. 2/97, 2.1% (Watchman); hazard ratio (HR), 1.50; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.20-11.08; P = 0.68] and safety (1/49, 2.0% vs. 5/97, 5.2%; HR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.05-1.31; P = 0.19), as well as the combined hazard endpoint (3/49, 61% vs. 6/97, 6.2%; HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.18-2.58; P = 0.59) were similar between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In the short term, LAAC with MemoLefort provided similar efficacy, safety, and net clinical benefit in comparison to Watchman devices.

Long-term outcomes of left atrial appendage closure with or without concomitant pulmonary vein isolation:a propensity score matching analysis based on CLACBAC study

BACKGROUND

The combined procedure of left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) with concomitant pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) has demonstrated its efficacy and safety. However, there is still a lack of comparative investigations regarding the long-term benefits of the combined procedure when compared to LAAC alone. Our study aims to assess the long-term outcomes of combined procedure of LAAC with concomitant PVI in comparison with a propensity matched LAAC alone group.

METHODS

Propensity score matching (PSM) was employed to rectify covariate imbalances, resulting in the inclusion of 153 comparable patients from the initial cohort of 333 non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) patients. Clinical outcomes, encompassing thrombotic events, major cardiocerebrovascular adverse events (MACCE), re-hospitalization due to cardiovascular disease (CVD), and atrial tachycardia (AT), were juxtaposed between the two groups. Bleeding events and peri-device complications, such as residual flow, device-related thrombus, and device replacement, were also compared. Additionally, a patients group underwent PVI alone was included for comparing AF recurrence rates between the PVI alone group and the combined group.

RESULTS

Following PSM, 153 patients (mean age 70.3 ± 8.9, 62.7% men) were included, with 102 undergoing the combined procedure and 51 undergoing LAAC alone. No significant differences were found in baseline characteristics between the two groups. The mean follow-up time was 37.6 ± 7.9 months, and two patients were lost to follow-up in the combined procedure group. Thrombotic events were observed in 4 (7.8%) patients in the LAAC alone group and 4 (4.0%) in the combined group (Log-rank p = 0.301). The proportion of patients experiencing MACCE, re-hospitalization due to CVD, and AT between the two groups was comparable, as were bleeding events and peri-device complications. Among patients from the combined procedure group without AF recurrence, a significant difference was noted in prior-procedure left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and LVEF at the 12th month after the procedure (57.2% ± 7.1% vs. 60.5% ± 6.5%, p = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

The concomitant PVI and LAAC procedure did not increase procedure-related complications, nor did it confer significant benefits in preventing thrombotic events or reducing other cardiovascular events. However, the combined procedure improved heart function, suggesting potential long-term benefits.