Incidence and clinical impact of major bleeding following left atrial appendage occlusion: insights from the Amplatzer Amulet Observational Post-Market Study

Trends in percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion and 1-year mortality 2013-2021: A nationwide observational study

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) is increasingly used for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation and anticoagulant-related complications. Yet, real-life studies evaluating changes in patient characteristics and indications for LAAO remain scarce.

METHODS

To evaluate changes in patient characteristics and indications for LAAO defined as 2-year history of intracerebral bleeding, any ischemic stroke/systemic embolism (SE), any non-intracerebral bleeding, other indication, and 1-year mortality. All patients undergoing percutaneous LAAO in Denmark from 2013 to 2021 were stratified into the following year groups: 2013-2015, 2016-2018, and 2019-2021.

RESULTS

In total, 1465 patients underwent LAAO. Age remained stable (2013-2015: 74 years versus 2019-2021: 75 years). Patients' comorbidity burden declined, exemplified by CHA2DS2-VASc ≥4 and HAS-BLED ≥3 decreased from 56.7% and 63.7% in 2013-2015 to 40.3% and 45.8% in 2019-2021. Indications for LAAO changed over time with other indication comprising 44.7% in 2019-2021; up from 26.9% in 2013-2015. Conversely, fewer patients had an indication of any ischemic stroke/SE (2013-2015: 30.8% vs 2019-2021: 20.3%) or any non-intracerebral bleeding (2013-2015: 29.4% vs 2019-2021: 23.4%). 1-year mortality was 11.3% for any non-intracerebral bleeding and 6.2% for other indication.

CONCLUSION

The LAAO patient-profile has changed considerably. Age remained stable, while comorbidity burden decreased during the period 2013-2021. LAAO is increasingly used in patients with no clinical event history and mortality differs according to indication. Selection of patients to LAAO should be done carefully, and contemporary real-life studies investigating clinical practice could add important insights.

Single antiplatelet therapy following Amplatzer left atrial appendage occlusion

BACKGROUND

The optimal antithrombotic therapy following left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) remains debated. Ideally, this therapy should effectively prevent device-related thrombosis (DRT) while minimising the associated bleeding risk.

AIMS

We aimed to evaluate the long-term safety and efficacy of a postprocedural single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) strategy following Amplatzer LAAO in a large consecutive cohort.

METHODS

This retrospective, single-centre, observational study included all patients discharged on SAPT after LAAO with the Amplatzer Cardiac Plug (ACP) or Amplatzer Amulet between March 2010 and December 2021 at Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark. Baseline, procedural, and imaging data were obtained locally, while clinical outcomes and medication data were extracted from the Danish national health registries.

RESULTS

A total of 553 patients underwent Amplatzer LAAO during the specified time frame. Of these, 431 (77.9%) high bleeding risk patients were discharged on SAPT with either acetylsalicylic acid (n=403, 72.9%) or clopidogrel (n=28, 5.1%). At 6 months, 173 (41.7%) patients were not on any antithrombotic therapy. The mean CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED scores were 3.9±1.5 and 3.4±1.1, respectively. DRT was detected in 6 (1.5%) patients on 8-week follow-up imaging using cardiac computed tomography (n=386, 89.6%) or transoesophageal echocardiography (n=27, 6.3%). The 1-year ischaemic stroke rate was 2.2% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.1-4.2). One-year rates for major bleeding and cardiovascular death were 5.9% (95% CI: 4.0-8.9) and 2.9% (95% CI: 1.6-5.1), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

SAPT following Amplatzer LAAO displayed rates of DRT and stroke comparable to those reported with more intensive antithrombotic regimens. Meanwhile, we observed low rates of major bleeding.

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.

Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure in patients with gastrointestinal bleeding associated with oral anticoagulants

INTRODUCTION

Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) has shown non-inferiority compared to oral anticoagulation (OAC) in preventing atrial fibrillation (AF)-related stroke. The objective of this study was to assess whether LAAC reduces the incidence of gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) and/or chronic anaemia associated with OAC, as well as the consumption of healthcare resources.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Prospective, single-center study from 2016 to 2022, LAAC was performed. Clinical, analytical and healthcare resource consumption data were collected (endoscopies, blood transfusions, hospital admissions) prior and 6 months after LAAC.

RESULTS

43 patients were included, with an average age of 77.6 years. LAAC indication was upper, low and obscure GIB in 7 (16%), 8 (19%) and 28 patients (65%) respectively. GIB source was intestinal angiodysplasias in 27 patients (63%), occult origin in 12 (28%), and others (antral vascular ectasia, portal hypertension gastropathy, etc.) in 4 patients (9%). The mean number of packed red blood cells per patient before LAAC was (mean ± SD) 7.29 ± 5 vs 0.42 ± 1.3 (p < 0.001); endoscopic procedures were 4.34 ± 2.85 vs 0.27 ± 0.76 (p < 0.001); and hospitalizations 2.67 ± 2.14 vs 0.03 ± 0.17 (p < 0.001), with a hospital stay of 21.5 ± 17.3 vs 0.09 ± 0.5 days (p < 0.001) at 6 months post-intervention. Haemoglobin value increased from 8.1 ± 1.2g/dl to 12.4 ± 2.2g/dl (p < 0.001) at 6 months. No thromboembolic events were registered during a median follow-up of 16.6 months (range 6-65).

CONCLUSIONS

LAAC could be a safe and effective alternative to OAC in patients with non-valvular AF presenting significant, recurrent or potentially unresolvable GIB. This intervention also leads to important savings in the consumption of healthcare resources.

Clinical outcomes of left atrial appendage occlusion in patients with previous intracranial or gastrointestinal bleeding: Insights from the LOGIC (Left atrial appendage Occlusion in patients with Gastrointestinal or IntraCranial bleeding) International Multicenter Registry

AIMS

To compare outcomes of patients who underwent left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) and contraindication to anticoagulants due to history of either gastrointestinal (GI) or intracranial (IC) bleeding.

METHODS

Patients with NVAF that underwent LAAO for GI or IC bleeding from seven centers were included in this observational study. Baseline characteristics, procedural features, and follow-up data were collected, and compared between the two groups. The primary outcomes were incidence of ischemic and hemorrhagic events at 12-month.

RESULTS

Six hundred twenty-eight patients were included, 57% with previous GI-bleeding, and 43% with previous IC-bleeding. Median CHA 2 DS 2-VASc score was 4 (interquartile range [IQRs]: 3-5) for both GI-bleeding and IC-bleeding patients, while GI-bleeding patients had a higher HAS-BLED score (4 [IQRs: 3-4] vs. 3 [IQRs]: 2-3]; p = 0.001). At 12-month follow-up, relative risk reduction for stroke was similar between the two groups. The GI-bleeding group had more hemorrhagic events compared to IC-bleeding group (any bleeding 8.4% vs. 3.2%; p = 0.012; major bleeding BARC 3-5: 4.3% vs. 1.8; p = 0.010). At multivariate analysis history of GI bleeding was an independent predictor of hemorrhagic events (adjusted HR: 2.39, 95% confidence interval: 1.02-5.63; p = 0.047).

CONCLUSIONS

Outcomes after LAAO may be affected by the different indications for the procedure. In our study, GI-bleeding and IC-bleeding as indication to LAAO differ in their baseline characteristics. LAAO confirms its efficacy in ischemic risk reduction in both groups, while GI bleeding seems to be an independent predictor of bleeding recurrence at 12 months behind the antithrombotic regimen.

Low Dose of Direct Oral Anticoagulants after Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion

The optimal antithrombotic strategy following left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) is not yet clearly established. Low-dose non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOAC) might represent a valid alternative, but data regarding their usage is scarce. The aim of this study was to examine the efficacy and safety of low-dose NOAC compared to single (SAPT) or dual antiplatelet therapies (DAPT) after LAAO. We included consecutive patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation who underwent LAAO and received low-dose apixaban, SAPT, or DAPT at discharge. The primary objective of this study included an efficacy endpoint (thromboembolic events and device related thrombosis (DRT)) and a safety endpoint (incidence of major bleeding) within the first three months after LAAO. A total of 139 patients were included. This group involved SAPT in 26 (18%), DAPT in 73 (53%), and apixaban in 40 (29%) patients. Follow-up at three-months showed no significant differences in the primary efficacy endpoint (2 (8%) SAPT, 3 (4%) DAPT and 0 (0%) apixaban; p value = 0.25). In contrast, the primary safety endpoint occurred more frequently in DAPT patients (7 (10%) DAPT, 0 (0%), SAPT and 0 with apixaban; p value = 0.03). Combining both efficacy and safety outcomes, low dose apixaban had a lower rate of events (2 (8%) with SAPT, 9 (12%) with DAPT and 0 (0%) with apixaban; p = 0.046). Low-dose apixaban after LAAO may be a valid alternative to DAPT and SAPT as depicted by the reduction in the occurrence of major bleedings and combined DRT/major bleedings respectively. Randomized data will be necessary to validate this strategy.