Impact of individual stroke risk on outcome after Amplatzer left atrial appendage closure in patients with atrial fibrillation.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate periprocedural and long-term outcome of left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) using Amplatzer occluders with respect to individual pre-procedural stroke risk. BACKGROUND: LAAC is a proven strategy for prevention from stroke and bleeding in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation not amenable to oral anticoagulation. Whether individual pre-procedural stroke risk may affect procedural and long-term clinical outcome after LAAC is unclear. METHODS: Multicenter study of consecutive patients who underwent Amplatzer-LAAC. Using pre-procedural CHADS2 score, outcomes were compared between a low (0-2 points) and a high stroke risk group (3-6 points). RESULTS: Five hundred consecutive patients (73.9 ± 10.1 years) who underwent Amplatzer-LAAC. Two hundred and forty eight had preprocedural CHADS2 score ≤ 2 points (low-risk group) and the remaining 252 patients had 3-6 points (high-risk group). Periprocedural complication rates (6.0% vs. 5.6%, p = .85), procedural success (LAAC without major periprocedural or device-related complications or major para-device leaks: 89.4% vs. 87.9%, p = .74), and 30-day-mortality (2.4% vs. 2.6%, p = .77) were comparable. After 1,346 patient-years (PY), the long-term composite efficacy endpoint (stroke, systemic embolism, cardiovascular, and unexplained death) was reached in 23/653 (3.5/100 PY) versus 52/693 (7.5/100 PY); HR = 2.13; 95%-CI, 1.28-3.65, p = .002) with stroke rates 67% and 68% lower than anticipated by preprocedural CHADS2 score. Combined safety endpoint (major periprocedural complications and major, life-threatening or fatal bleedings) occurred in 22/653 (3.4/100 PY) versus 28/693 (4.0/100 PY); HR = 1.20; 95%-CI, 0.66-2.20, p = .52). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with patients at low risk of stroke, LAAC with Amplatzer devices is associated with similar safety and efficacy in high-risk patients in our study.

Left atrial appendage closure versus medical therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation: the APPLY study.

AIMS: Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) with AMPLATZER occluders is used for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF). Net clinical benefit compared to medical therapy has not been tested. The aim of this study was to test whether long-term clinical outcome after LAAC with AMPLATZER occluders may be similar to medical therapy. METHODS AND RESULTS: Five hundred consecutive patients who underwent LAAC with AMPLATZER occluders were compared to 500 patients with medical therapy by propensity score matching. The primary efficacy endpoint was a composite of stroke, systemic embolism and cardiovascular/unexplained death. The primary safety endpoint consisted of major procedural adverse events and major bleedings. For assessment of net clinical benefit, all of the above-mentioned hazards were combined. After 2,645 patient-years at a mean follow-up of 2.7±1.5 years, the primary efficacy endpoint was reached by 75/1,342, 5.6% in the LAAC group versus 102/1,303, 7.8% per 100 patient-years (hazard ratio [HR] 0.70, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.53-0.95, p=0.026). The primary safety endpoint occurred in 48/1,342, 3.6% versus 60/1,303, 4.6% per 100 patient-years (HR 0.80, 95% CI: 0.55-1.18, p=0.21), and the combined hazard endpoint in 109/1,342, 8.1% versus 142/1,303, 10.9% per 100 patient-years (HR 0.76, 95% CI: 0.60-0.97, p=0.018). Patients receiving LAAC demonstrated lower rates of both all-cause and cardiovascular mortality (111/1,342, 8.3% vs 151/1,303, 11.6% per 100 patient-years [HR 0.72, 95% CI: 0.56-0.92, p=0.005] and 54/1,342, 4.0% vs 84/1,303, 6.5% per 100 patient-years [HR 0.64, 95% CI: 0.46-0.89, p=0.007]). CONCLUSIONS: LAAC with AMPLATZER devices showed a net clinical benefit over medical therapy by superior efficacy, similar safety and a benefit in all-cause and cardiovascular mortality.

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.

Long-term clinical outcomes of Amplatzer cardiac plug versus Amulet occluders for left atrial appendage closure.

OBJECTIVES: To compare long-term clinical outcomes after left atrial appendage closure with the Amplatzer Cardiac Plug (ACP) and Amulet. BACKGROUND: The Amulet was designed to improve clinical outcomes of first-generation ACP. METHODS: Three Amplatzer registries (Bern, Coburg, Zurich), with enrollment of patients from 2009 to 2018, were retrospectively analyzed. The primary safety endpoint was a composite of major peri-procedural complications and major bleedings, the primary efficacy endpoint included stroke, systemic embolism, and cardiovascular/unexplained death. The net clinical benefit was a combination of all above-mentioned hazards. RESULTS: A total of consecutive 563 patients (344 ACP vs. 219 Amulet) with a mean follow-up of 2.9 ± 1.6 and 1.9 ± 0.9 years were included. Mean age (74.4 ± 9.9 [ACP] vs. 74.4 ± 9.1 [Amulet] years), stroke (CHA2 DS2 -VASc score 4.4 ± 1.6 vs. 4.6 ± 1.7), and bleeding risk (HAS-BLED score 3.2 ± 1.1 vs. 3.2 ± 0.9) were comparable. The primary endpoints of efficacy (72/998, 7.2% [ACP] vs. 43/417, 10.3% [Amulet]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44-1.02, p = .062), safety (40/998, 4.0% vs. 18/417, 4.3%; HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.53-2.51, p = .72), and the net clinical benefit (101/998, 10.1% vs. 55/417, 13.4%; HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.49-1.07, p = .11) were similar. CONCLUSION: In the long term, left atrial appendage closure with first and second-generation Amplatzer devices provided similar efficacy, safety, and net clinical benefit. Clinical outcomes may be rather determined by implantation technique and hemodynamics, but not by the design modifications of the Amulet.

Transseptal puncture versus patent foramen ovale or atrial septal defect access for left atrial appendage closure.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to compare the periprocedural and late clinical outcomes of left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) with AMPLATZER devices by access through transseptal puncture (TSP) versus a patent foramen ovale (PFO) or an atrial septal defect (ASD). METHODS AND RESULTS: Between 2009 and 2018, 578 consecutive patients underwent LAAC via TSP or PFO/ASD access in three centres. After a 3:1 propensity score matching, 246 (TSP) versus 91 (PFO/ASD) patients were compared using the primary efficacy endpoint of all-cause stroke, systemic embolism and cardiovascular/unexplained death and the primary safety endpoint of major periprocedural complications and major bleedings at follow-up. Mean age was 75.2±8.7 (TSP) vs 74.4±10.9 (PFO/ASD) years, CHA2DS2-VASc score 4.5±1.6 vs 4.3±1.4 and HAS-BLED score 3.3±1.0 vs 3.3±0.9. Device success (97.6% vs 97.8%, p=0.90) was similar. After 2.5±1.4 vs 2.6±1.6 years, clinical efficacy (46/603, 7.6% [TSP] vs 21/233, 9.0% [PFO/ASD], hazard ratio [HR] 1.2; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.69-0.85, p=0.54) and safety (24/603, 4.0% vs 11/233, 4.7%; HR 1.4; 95% CI: 0.52-3.6, p=0.49) did not differ. CONCLUSIONS: Use of a PFO/ASD access for LAAC with AMPLATZER devices offers similar periprocedural and late clinical outcomes to TSP. Simultaneous PFO/ASD closure for an additional protective benefit does not increase risk.

Predictors of Early (1-Week) Outcomes Following Left Atrial Appendage Closure With Amplatzer Devices.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess predictors of adverse 1-week outcomes and determine the effect of left atrial appendage (LAA) morphology following LAA closure (LAAC) with Amplatzer devices. BACKGROUND: Percutaneous LAAC is a valuable treatment option for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation. Determinants of procedural safety events with Amplatzer occluders are not well established, and the possibly interrelating effect of LAA anatomy is unknown. METHODS: Between 2009 and 2014, 500 consecutive patients with atrial fibrillation ineligible or at high risk for oral anticoagulation underwent LAAC using Amplatzer devices. Procedure- and device-related major adverse events (MAEs) were defined as the composite of death, stroke, major or life-threatening bleeding, serious pericardial effusion, device embolization, major access-site vascular complication, or need for cardiovascular surgery within 7 days following the intervention. RESULTS: Patients (mean age 73.9 ± 10.1 years) were treated with Amplatzer Cardiac Plug (n = 408 [82%]) or Amulet (n = 92 [18%]) devices. Early procedural success was 97.8%, and MAEs occurred in 29 patients (5.8%). Independent predictors of MAEs included device repositioning (odds ratio: 9.13; 95% confidence interval: 2.85 to 33.54; p < 0.001) and left ventricular ejection fraction <30% (odds ratio: 4.08; 95% confidence interval: 1.49 to 11.20; p = 0.006), with no effect of device type or size. Angiographic LAA morphology, characterized as cauliflower (33%), cactus (32%), windsock (20%), or chicken wing (15%), was not associated with procedural success (p = 0.51) or the occurrence of MAEs (p = 0.78). CONCLUSIONS: In this nonrandomized study, procedural success of LAAC using Amplatzer devices was high. MAEs within 7 days were predicted by patient- and procedure-related factors. Although LAA morphology displayed substantial heterogeneity, outcomes were comparable across the spectrum of LAA anatomies.