Clinical outcomes of Watchman vs. Amplatzer occluders for left atrial appendage closure (WATCH at LAAC).

AIMS: This study compares clinical outcomes of Watchman vs. Amplatzer devices for left atrial appendage closure (LAAC). METHODS AND RESULTS: Of two real-world registries, the Watchman registry Lichtenfels, Germany, and the Amplatzer registry Bern-Zurich, Switzerland, 303 and 333 consecutive patients, respectively, were included. After a 1:1 propensity score matching, 266 vs. 266 patients were compared by use of the predefined primary efficacy endpoint of stroke, systemic embolism and cardiovascular/unexplained death, the primary safety endpoint of major peri-procedural complications and major bleeding events at follow-up, and the combined hazard endpoint, a composite of all above-mentioned hazards. Mean age was 75.3 ± 7.8 (Watchman) vs. 75.1 ± 9.9 (Amplatzer) years, CHA2DS2-VASc score 4.5 ± 1.7 vs. 4.5 ± 1.5, and HAS-BLED score 3.2 ± 1.0 vs. 3.2 ± 1.0. At a mean follow-up of 2.4 ± 1.3 vs. 2.5 ± 1.5 years and 1.322 patient-years, the primary endpoints of efficacy [40/646, 6.2% [Watchman] vs. 43/676, 6.4% [Amplatzer]; hazard ratio (HR), 1.02; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.66-1.58; P = 0.92] and safety (33/646, 5.1% vs. 30/676, 4.4%; HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.29-1.11; P = 0.10), as well as the combined hazard endpoint (69/646, 10.7% vs. 66/676, 9.8%; HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.55-1.12; P = 0.26) were similar for both groups. CONCLUSION: This study suggests comparable efficacy and safety of the Watchman and Amplatzer devices.

Ventricular fibrillation due to severe mitral valve prolapse.

Mitral valve prolapse usually has a good prognosis. However, an association between mitral valve prolapse and atrial and ventricular arrhythmias has been described. This case presents a patient who was admitted after cardiac resuscitation due to ventricular fibrillation. A severe mitral valve prolapse was the only pathology found.

Imaging of the coronary venous system: retrograde coronary sinus angiography versus venous phase coronary angiograms.

BACKGROUND: Left ventricular lead implantation for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) usually requires a pre- or intraprocedural occlusion contrast venography of the coronary sinus (CS) in order to identify tributaries to the lateral wall. As many patients undergo a preprocedural coronary angiogram, we investigated the diagnostic accuracy of venous phase imaging of the CS in patients prior to CRT implantation. The aim of this study was to assess the quality of venous phase coronary sinus angiography. METHODS: In 24 CRT patients retrograde occlusion venography and venous phase coronary sinus angiography obtained during coronary angiography were compared with respect to image quality, vessel diameters and the ability to identify a coronary sinus side branch suitable for left ventricular lead placement. RESULTS: Suitable target vessels for left ventricular lead implantation were identified in all patients irrespective of the method (retrograde occlusion venography or venous phase coronary sinus angiography). There was a high concordance in vessel diameters between venous phase and retrograde angiography. Visibility was superior in retrograde venography. CONCLUSIONS: In heart failure patients who are scheduled for coronary angiograms venous phase coronary sinus angiography is a time-saving and easy to perform alternative imaging modality. Radiation exposure and the amount of contrast medium needed is reduced as compared to coronary sinus occlusion angiography. The information obtained thereby may be used to plan subsequent CRT implantation without the need for retrograde coronary sinus angiography.