Left atrial appendage closure: a new strategy for cardioembolic events despite oral anticoagulation.

BACKGROUND: Patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (nvAF) who experienced a cardioembolic (CE) event despite adequate oral anticoagulation (OAC) are at high risk of recurrence, and further prevention strategies are deemed necessary. The present study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of off-label use of left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) in this subset of patients. METHODS: Seventy-five consecutive patients with nvAF who experienced a CE event despite adequate OAC therapy were retrospectively enrolled from two Italian centers. Patients were divided according to the treatment strategy following the index event: DOAC group (49 patients who continued OAC therapy with DOACs) and LAAC group (26 patients who underwent LAAC procedure). 1:1 propensity-score matching between the two groups was performed. LAAC group was made up of two subgroups according to the post-procedural pharmacological regimen: 1) dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) for 3 months followed by indefinite single antiplatelet therapy (LAAC+SAPT); or 2) aspirin plus DOAC for 3 months followed by indefinite DOAC therapy (LAAC+DOAC). The primary endpoint was a composite of CE event, major bleeding, or procedure-related major complication. RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 3.4 years (IQR: 2.0-5.3), LAAC was a predictor of primary endpoint-free survival (HR=0.28, 95% CI: 0.08-0.97; P=0.044); within LAAC group, no procedure-related major complication occurred. Moreover, a trend toward a lower rate of both CE events and major bleedings was observed in LAAC group, particularly in the subgroup LAAC+DOAC. CONCLUSIONS: LAAC is a reasonable therapeutic option in nvAF patients who suffered a CE event despite adequate OAC therapy.

Atrial function analysis after percutaneous umbrella device and suture-mediated patent fossa ovalis closure.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation is an undesirable event following percutaneous patent fossa ovalis (PFO) closure with metallic occluders, suggesting that implanting a rigid closure device could alter atrial function. Suture-mediated PFO closure is a new technique, achieving closure of the PFO by means of a simple suture. Aim of this study was to evaluate left atrial function after closure of PFO by direct suture and traditional occluders. METHODS: We studied 40 age and sex homogeneous patients, 20 undergoing PFO closure by device (OCL) and 20 by suturing (NS). Twenty healthy sex-age matched subjects made up the control group (CT). Left atrial function was evaluated by using volumetric and speckle-tracking analysis assessing the following parameters: total emptying fraction (EF), Expansion Index (EI), active emptying fraction (AEF), strain values of the reservoir (r-ED), conduit (cd-ED) and contraction phase (ct-ED). RESULTS: Compared to CT and NS, OCL patients had significantly worst indices of left atrial reservoir function (EF P=0.001, EI P=0.003, r-ED P<0.001), conduit function (cd-ED P=0.018) and contraction function (AEF P=0.010; ct-ED P<0.001). No significant differences were observed in left atrial function indices between CT and NS patients. CONCLUSIONS: Suture-mediated PFO closure does not alter left atrial function. Conversely, metallic occluder is associated with worse left atrium function. This detrimental effect on atrial function could favor the development of atrial arrhythmias.

Distal Versus Conventional Radial Access for Coronary Angiography and Intervention: The DISCO RADIAL Trial.

BACKGROUND: Currently, transradial access (TRA) is the recommended access for coronary procedures because of increased safety, with radial artery occlusion (RAO) being its most frequent complication, which will increasingly affect patients undergoing multiple procedures during their lifetimes. Recently, distal radial access (DRA) has emerged as a promising alternative access to minimize RAO risk. A large-scale, international, randomized trial comparing RAO with TRA and DRA is lacking. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the superiority of DRA compared with conventional TRA with respect to forearm RAO. METHODS: DISCO RADIAL (Distal vs Conventional Radial Access) was an international, multicenter, randomized controlled trial in which patients with indications for percutaneous coronary procedure using a 6-F Slender sheath were randomized to DRA or TRA with systematic implementation of best practices to reduce RAO. The primary endpoint was the incidence of forearm RAO assessed by vascular ultrasound at discharge. Secondary endpoints include crossover, hemostasis time, and access site-related complications. RESULTS: Overall, 657 patients underwent TRA, and 650 patients underwent DRA. Forearm RAO did not differ between groups (0.91% vs 0.31%; P = 0.29). Patent hemostasis was achieved in 94.4% of TRA patients. Crossover rates were higher with DRA (3.5% vs 7.4%; P = 0.002), and median hemostasis time was shorter (180 vs 153 minutes; P < 0.001). Radial artery spasm occurred more with DRA (2.7% vs 5.4%; P = 0.015). Overall bleeding events and vascular complications did not differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS: With the implementation of a rigorous hemostasis protocol, DRA and TRA have equally low RAO rates. DRA is associated with a higher crossover rate but a shorter hemostasis time.