Safety and feasibility of peri-device leakage closure after LAAO: an international, multicentre collaborative study

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.

Transoesophageal echocardiography beyond the echo-laboratory. An expert consensus paper of the working group of echocardiography of the hellenic society of cardiology

Transoesophageal echocardiography (TOE) is a well-established and valid imaging modality, providing more accurate and of higher quality information than transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) for several specific diagnoses and recently a useful guide of an increasing number of catheter-based and surgical interventions. The present paper represents an effort by the Echocardiography Working Group (WG) of the Hellenic Society of Cardiology to state the essential steps of the TOE exam performed beyond the echo lab: a) in the operating rooms intraoperatively during either transcatheter interventions, or cardiothoracic surgery and b) in the intensive care unit for critically ill patients' monitoring. This paper includes information and tips and tricks about the pre-procedural evaluation, the procedural echocardiographic guidance, and post-procedural evaluation of the result and potential complications.

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.

Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure with the Watchman device: a systematic review

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most commonly observed arrhythmia in the world and its prevalence increases with age. The main and most severe complication of AF is ischemic stroke. Oral anticoagulation (OAC) therapy is the standard of care for stroke prevention in the high risk population. Initiation of this treatment is associated with a substantial risk of bleeding complications. Moreover, there is a group of patients who cannot tolerate OAC. In patients with AF the left atrial appendage (LAA) is the main source of thrombus formation. Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) has become an important non-pharmacological intervention for stroke prevention in patients with non-valvular AF. The procedure aims to reduce the risk of thromboembolism without increasing the risk of bleeding. Over the last few years, the safety and long-term efficacy of the procedure in specific populations have increased and more patients are being treated. The Watchman device is the most studied device in this field. Randomized controlled trials demonstrated non-inferiority of percutaneous left atrial appendage closure using the WATCHMAN 2.5 device to OAC (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA, USA). The new generation device, WATCHMAN FLX, was introduced and its use was associated with fewer safety events and a higher success rate of effective appendage closure. Nevertheless, several unsolved problems remain, including device-related thrombosis, the post-LAAC antithrombotic regimen, and peri-device leakage. This review will focus on LAAC with the Watchman device for stroke prevention in AF patients. Current status, available literature, clinical safety and efficacy will be summarized.

A decade later: long-term results of the first percutaneous epicardial closure of the left atrial appendage using the LARIAT device

Introduction

Over the past decade, left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) has emerged as an established alternative to oral anticoagulation for patients diagnosed with atrial fibrillation (AF). The LARIAT device stands as the sole available epicardial system for complete percutaneous left atrial appendage (LAA) closure.

Aim

To present the extended outcomes (spanning over 9 years of observation) in patients with AF who underwent epicardial LAAO. The presented results constitute the longest observation in world literature.

Material and methods

A prospective, single-center study was conducted on 121 patients undergoing LAAO with the LARIAT system. Incidence of thromboembolic events and severe bleeding and mortality rates were documented. The reduction in the risk of thromboembolism and bleeding after LAAO was quantified.

Results

The mean follow-up duration was 74.18 months. The average CHADS2 score was 1.9 ±1.0, CHA2DS2-VAS score was 2.8 ±1.5, and HAS-BLED score was 2.7 ±1.0. The mean annual thromboembolic event rate was 0.7%, resulting in a 75% reduction in estimated thromboembolic risk. The annual occurrence of major bleeding complications was 0.8%, leading to a 67.9% reduction in estimated bleeding risk. The overall annual mortality rate was 1.2%.

Conclusions

Epicardial LAAO employing the LARIAT device yields commendable long-term outcomes by reducing stroke and bleeding risk.

Antithrombotic Therapy after Percutaneous Left Atrial Appendage Closure: Evidence, Challenges and Future Directions

Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) has been established in clinical practice as an attractive alternative to oral anticoagulation for preventing stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation and high bleeding risk. The devices approved in Europe and United States (US) for percutaneous LAAC contain metal and antithrombotic therapy is strongly recommended after their implantation to prevent apposition of thrombus on the atrial surface of the device during endothelialization. However, there is still uncertainty regarding the optimal antithrombotic drug regimen following device implantation in view of the incomplete understanding of the LAAC device healing process, the lack of randomized clinical trials comparing different antithrombotic agents after LAAC and the heterogeneous bleeding risk of patients undergoing LAAC. Thus, this review aims to evaluate the available evidence and the remaining challenges related to the post-LAAC antithrombotic regimens. Furthermore, common clinical scenarios associated with challenging management of antithrombotic therapy after LAAC and potential future directions, will be discussed.

The CT derived angle between the transseptal puncture site and the left atrial appendage as a predictor for complex interventional occlusion procedures

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the role of the CT-derived angle between the intra-atrial septum (IAS) and the left atrial appendage (LAA) on procedural complexity and clinical outcomes in left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) procedures.

BACKGROUND

Given the broad variations in anatomy, LAAO remains one of the most challenging interventional procedures in structural heart disease. In recent years, preprocedural cardiac tomography (CT) has evolved as a valuable tool; however, prediction of procedural complexity remains cumbersome.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 47 patients that underwent LAAO at our center in whom pre-procedural cardiac CT-scans were available. Among other baseline parameters, we measured the angle between the LAA ostium and the preferred transseptal puncture site at the IAS. We compared patients with an angle above and below the median regarding procedural characteristics and procedural outcome.

RESULTS

The median angle between the LAA and the IAS was 127.3° (IQR: 120.9-141.3). LAAO took longer in patients with a measured angle below the median (55.0 ± 22.7 min vs. 41.3 ± 17.5 min; p = .04), resulting in longer radiation times (13.0 ± 5.3 min vs. 9.8 ± 5.7 min; p = .04) and more contrast use (61.1 ± 47.5 mL vs. 33.6 ± 24.7 mL; p = .05). Moreover, the necessity for a sheath exchange was significantly higher (30.4% vs. 4.2%, p = .02) and device repositioning or device resizing trended to be more frequent (26.1% vs. 8.3%; p = .1 and 21.7% vs. 8.3%; p = .2). There were no differences in procedural outcome, device-position and peri-device leak (PDL).

CONCLUSIONS

The angle between the transseptal puncture site and the LAA ostium may serve as a predictor for more demanding LAAO interventions. In our study a steeper angle led to a prolonged procedure resulting in higher doses of contrast and radiation, but was not associated with a worse procedural outcome.

Peri- and Post-procedural Anticoagulation with Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion Devices

In patients with atrial fibrillation and high stroke risk, anticoagulation with direct oral anticoagulants or vitamin K antagonists is the standard of care for stroke prevention. The benefit of anticoagulation is driven by attenuating the risk of thrombus formation in the left atrial appendage. Percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion offers an alternative therapeutic strategy for stroke prevention in patients with high bleeding risk or contraindications for long-term anticoagulation. This review of the current literature delineates the standard protocols of peri- and post-procedural anticoagulation/antithrombotic therapy after left atrial appendage occlusion, the complications of the procedure, and the risk of device-related thrombosis and of incomplete occlusion of the appendage. Finally,the limitations and gaps in the literature are identified.

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.

Left atrial appendage occlusion

Prevention of stroke represents a goal of primary importance in health systems due to its associated morbidity and mortality. As several patient groups with increased stroke rates have been identified, multiple approaches have been developed and implemented: oral anticoagulation (OAC) for patients with atrial fibrillation, surgical and percutaneous revascularisation in patients with carotid disease, device closure for patients with patent foramen ovale, and now, left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) for selected patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). The latter group of patients are the focus of this review which evaluates the pathophysiology, selection of patients, procedural performance, outcomes of treatment both during and post-procedure, adjunctive therapy, complications, and longer-term outcomes.

Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion: Current Advances and Remaining Challenges

The field of left atrial appendage occlusion is rapidly evolving. However, several issues remain including the limited randomized efficacy data, peri-device leak, device-related thrombus, and the ongoing refinement of procedural techniques. In this article, we provide a contemporary overview of left atrial appendage occlusion focusing on 4 key remaining challenges: efficacy data, peri-device leak, device-related thrombus, and procedural optimization.

Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion, A Misnomer?: Where Do We Go From Here?

The importance of the left atrial appendage (LAA) as the source of thromboembolism including stroke in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation is well documented, with more than 90% of ischemic strokes related to a LAA thrombus. Although oral anticoagulation has been the standard of care, approximately 50% to 60% of patients either have contraindications to oral anticoagulation or do not continue the medication beyond the first year. This led to the development of local site-specific therapy to occlude the LAA by either surgical or transcatheter means. Despite marked advancements, incomplete LAA closure with surgical and transcatheter approaches remains frequent. The etiology of incomplete LAA closure and its clinical implications remain unclear. Multiple strategies are in development including changes in deployment techniques, a new device design, and alternative approaches to leak closure.

Clinical Impact of Residual Leaks Following Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion: Insights From the NCDR LAAO Registry

BACKGROUND

Data on the impact of residual peri-device leak after left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) are limited.

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this study was to explore the association of peri-device leak with adverse clinical events.

METHODS

The National Cardiovascular Data Registry LAAO Registry was queried to identify patients undergoing LAAO between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2019. Patients were classified according to leak size on echocardiography at 45 ± 14 days (0 mm, no leak; >0-5 mm, small leak; and >5 mm, large leak).

RESULTS

A total of 51,333 patients were included, of whom 37,696 (73.4%) had no leak, 13,258 (25.8%) had small leaks, and 379 (0.7%) had large leaks. The proportion of patients on warfarin at 45 days was higher in the large vs small or no leak cohorts (44.9% vs 34.4% and 32.4%, respectively; P < 0.001). At 6 and 12 months, anticoagulant utilization decreased but remained more frequent in patients with large leaks. Thromboembolic and bleeding events were uncommon in all groups. However, compared with patients with no leak, those with small leaks had slightly higher odds of stroke/transient ischemic attack/systemic embolization (adjusted HR: 1.152; 95% CI: 1.025-1.294), major bleeding (HR: 1.11; 95% CI: 1.029-1.120), and any major adverse events (HR: 1.102; 95% CI: 1.048-1.160). There were no significant differences in adverse events between patients with large leaks and patients with small or no leaks.

CONCLUSIONS

Small (>0-5 mm) leaks after LAAO were associated with a modestly higher incidence of thromboembolic and bleeding events; large leaks (>5 mm) were not associated with adverse events, although higher proportions of these patients were maintained on anticoagulation. Newer devices with improved seal might mitigate the events associated with residual leaks.