Atrial shunt device for heart failure with preserved and mildly reduced ejection fraction (REDUCE LAP-HF II): a randomised, multicentre, blinded, sham-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Placement of an interatrial shunt device reduces pulmonary capillary wedge pressure during exercise in patients with heart failure and preserved or mildly reduced ejection fraction. We aimed to investigate whether an interatrial shunt can reduce heart failure events or improve health status in these patients. METHODS: In this randomised, international, blinded, sham-controlled trial performed at 89 health-care centres, we included patients (aged ≥40 years) with symptomatic heart failure, an ejection fraction of at least 40%, and pulmonary capillary wedge pressure during exercise of at least 25 mm Hg while exceeding right atrial pressure by at least 5 mm Hg. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either a shunt device or sham procedure. Patients and outcome assessors were masked to randomisation. The primary endpoint was a hierarchical composite of cardiovascular death or non-fatal ischemic stroke at 12 months, rate of total heart failure events up to 24 months, and change in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary score at 12 months. Pre-specified subgroup analyses were conducted for the heart failure event endpoint. Analysis of the primary endpoint, all other efficacy endpoints, and safety endpoints was conducted in the modified intention-to-treat population, defined as all patients randomly allocated to receive treatment, excluding those found to be ineligible after randomisation and therefore not treated. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03088033. FINDINGS: Between May 25, 2017, and July 24, 2020, 1072 participants were enrolled, of whom 626 were randomly assigned to either the atrial shunt device (n=314) or sham procedure (n=312). There were no differences between groups in the primary composite endpoint (win ratio 1·0 [95% CI 0·8-1·2]; p=0·85) or in the individual components of the primary endpoint. The prespecified subgroups demonstrating a differential effect of atrial shunt device treatment on heart failure events were pulmonary artery systolic pressure at 20W of exercise (pinteraction=0·002 [>70 mm Hg associated with worse outcomes]), right atrial volume index (pinteraction=0·012 [≥29·7 mL/m2, worse outcomes]), and sex (pinteraction=0·02 [men, worse outcomes]). There were no differences in the composite safety endpoint between the two groups (n=116 [38%] for shunt device vs n=97 [31%] for sham procedure; p=0·11). INTERPRETATION: Placement of an atrial shunt device did not reduce the total rate of heart failure events or improve health status in the overall population of patients with heart failure and ejection fraction of greater than or equal to 40%. FUNDING: Corvia Medical.

Amplatzer Amulet Left Atrial Appendage Occluder Versus Watchman Device for Stroke Prophylaxis (Amulet IDE): A Randomized, Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous closure of the left atrial appendage (LAA) is an alternative to chronic oral anticoagulation to reduce stroke risk in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. The Amulet IDE trial (Amplatzer Amulet Left Atrial Appendage Occluder IDE Trial) was designed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the dual-seal mechanism of the Amulet LAA occluder compared with the Watchman device. METHODS: Patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation at increased risk of stroke were randomly assigned (1:1) to undergo percutaneous implantation of a LAA occluder with the Amulet occluder or Watchman device. The primary end points included safety (composite of procedure-related complications, all-cause death, or major bleeding at 12 months), effectiveness (composite of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism at 18 months), and the rate of LAA occlusion at 45 days. Prespecified secondary end points included a composite of all stroke, systemic embolism, or cardiovascular/unexplained death at 18 months, major bleeding at 18 months, and superiority test of the 3 primary end points. RESULTS: A total of 1878 patients were enrolled. The Amulet occluder was noninferior to the Watchman device for the primary safety end point (14.5% versus 14.7%; difference=-0.14 [95% CI, -3.42 to 3.13]; P<0.001 for noninferiority). Major bleeding and all-cause death were similar between groups (10.6% versus 10.0% and 3.9% versus 5.1%, respectively). Procedure-related complications were higher for the Amulet occluder (4.5% versus 2.5%), largely related to more frequent pericardial effusion and device embolization. The Amulet occluder was noninferior to the Watchman device for the primary effectiveness end point (2.8% versus 2.8%; difference=0.00 [95% CI, -1.55 to 1.55]; P<0.001 for noninferiority), and the composite of stroke, systemic embolism, or cardiovascular/unexplained death (5.6% versus 7.7%, difference=-2.12 [95% CI, -4.45 to 0.21]; P<0.001 for noninferiority). The rate of major bleeding was similar between groups (11.6% versus 12.3%; difference=-0.71 [95% CI, -3.72 to 2.31]; P=0.32 for superiority). LAA occlusion was higher for the Amulet occluder than for the Watchman device (98.9% versus 96.8%; difference=2.03 [95% CI, 0.41-3.66]; P<0.001 for noninferiority; P=0.003 for superiority). CONCLUSIONS: The Amulet occluder was noninferior for safety and effectiveness of stroke prevention for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation compared with the Watchman device and superior for LAA occlusion. Procedure-related complications were higher with the Amulet occluder and decreased with operator experience. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02879448.

Device-Related Thrombus After Left Atrial Appendage Closure: Incidence, Predictors, and Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: In patients with atrial fibrillation, left atrial appendage closure with the Watchman device prevents thromboembolism from the left atrial appendage; however, thrombus may form on the left atrial face of the device, and then potentially embolize. Herein, we studied the incidence, predictors, and clinical outcome of device-related thrombus (DRT) using a large series of clinical trial cohorts of patients undergoing Watchman implantation. METHODS: We studied the device arms of 4 prospective Food and Drug Administration trials: PROTECT-AF (Watchman Left Atrial Appendage System for Embolic Protection in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation) (n=463); PREVAIL (Evaluation of the Watchman LAA Closure Device in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Versus Long Term Warfarin Therapy) (n=269); CAP (Continued Access to PROTECT AF registry) (n=566); and CAP2 (Continued Access to PREVAIL registry) (n=578). Surveillance transesophageal echocardiographs were performed at 45 days and 12 months in all patients, and also at 6 months in the randomized control trials. We assessed both the incidence of DRT during these transesophageal echocardiographs (and other unscheduled transesophageal echocardiographs), and clinical outcomes of postprocedure stroke or systemic embolism (SSE) and adjusted for CHA2DS2-VASC and HAS-BLED scores. RESULTS: Of 1739 patients who received an implant (7159 patient-years follow-up; CHA2DS2-VASc=4.0), DRT was seen in 65 patients (3.74%). The rates of SSE with and without DRT were 7.46 and 1.78 per 100 patient-years (adjusted rate ratio, 3.55; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.18-5.79; P<0.001), and ischemic SSE rates were 6.28 and 1.65 per 100 patient-years (adjusted rate ratio, 3.22; 95% CI, 1.90-5.45, P<0.001). On multivariable modeling analysis, the predictors of DRT were as follows: history of transient ischemic attack or stroke (odds ratio [OR], 2.31; 95% CI, 1.26-4.25; P=0.007), permanent atrial fibrillation (OR, 2.24; 95% CI, 1.19-4.20; P=0.012); vascular disease (OR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.08-3.91; P=0.028); left atrial appendage diameter (OR, 1.06 per mm increase; 95% CI, 1.01-1.12; P=0.019); left ventricular ejection fraction (OR, 0.96 per 1% increase; 95% CI, 0.94-0.99; P=0.009). DRT and SSE both occurred in 17 of 65 patients (26.2%). Of the 19 SSE events in these patients with DRT, 9 of 19 (47.4%) and 12 of 19 (63.2%) occurred within 1 and 6 months of DRT detection. Conversely, after left atrial appendage closure, most SSEs (123/142, 86.62%) occurred in patients without DRT. CONCLUSIONS: After left atrial appendage closure with Watchman, DRT (≈3.7%) is not frequent but, when present, is associated with a higher rate of stroke and systemic embolism.

Safety and Feasibility of Cardiac Electrophysiology Procedures In Ambulatory Surgery Centers.

BACKGROUND: Despite their improved safety, majority of cardiac electrophysiology procedures, including catheter ablation (CA), are presently performed in hospital outpatient departments (HODs). OBJECTIVE: This large, multicenter study investigated the safety and outcomes associated with various cardiac electrophysiology procedures performed at 6 ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs), primarily during the COVID-19 pandemic under the CMS Hospitals Without Walls program. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the outcomes from consecutive electrophysiology procedures performed in ASCs with same-day discharge, including transesophageal echocardiography (TEE), cardioversion, cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation, electrophysiology studies (EPS), and CA for atrial fibrillation (AF), atrial flutter (AFL)/supraventricular tachycardia (SVT), ventricular premature complexes (VPCs), and AV node. RESULTS: Altogether, 4,037 procedures were performed, including 779 TEE/cardioversions (19.3%), 1,453 CIED implants (36.0%), 26 EPS (0.6%), and 1,779 CAs (44.1%) for AF (75.4%), AFL/SVT (18.8%), VPC (4.7%), and AV node (1.1%). Overall, 80.2% of CAs were for left-sided atrial arrhythmias (AF/atypical AFL) requiring transseptal catheterization. Left-sided VPC ablations (42.2%) were performed using a transseptal/retrograde approach. Adverse event rates were low, but comparable between CIED and CA (0.76% vs. 0.73%; P=0.93), as were the incidences of urgent/unplanned post-procedure hospitalization (0.48% vs. 0.45%; P=0.89), respectively. Moreover, the adverse event rates in ASCs versus HODs did not differ for CIED (0.76% vs. 0.65%; P=0.71) or CA (0.73% vs. 0.80%; P=0.79). CONCLUSION: The results from this large, multicenter study suggest that ASCs represent a safe and effective setting to conduct a variety of cardiac electrophysiology procedures including CA. These findings bear important implications for healthcare delivery and policy.

2-Year Outcomes of an Atrial Shunt Device in HFpEF/HFmrEF: Results From REDUCE LAP-HF II.

BACKGROUND: The REDUCE LAP-HF II (Reduce Elevated Left Atrial Pressure in Patients With Heart Failure II) trial found that, compared with a sham procedure, the Corvia Atrial Shunt did not improve outcomes in heart failure with preserved or mildly reduced ejection fraction. However, after 12-month follow-up, "responders" (peak-exercise pulmonary vascular resistance <1.74 WU and absence of a cardiac rhythm management device) were identified. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine: 1) the overall efficacy and safety of the atrial shunt vs sham control after 2 years of follow-up; and 2) whether the benefits of atrial shunting are sustained in responders during longer-term follow-up or are offset by adverse effects of the shunt. METHODS: The study analyzed 2-year outcomes in the overall REDUCE LAP-HF II trial, as well as in responder and nonresponder subgroups. The primary endpoint was a hierarchical composite of cardiovascular death or nonfatal ischemic/embolic stroke, total heart failure events, and change in health status. RESULTS: In 621 randomized patients, there was no difference between the shunt (n = 309) and sham (n = 312) groups in the primary endpoint (win ratio: 1.01 [95% CI: 0.82-1.24]) or its individual components at 2 years. Shunt patency at 24 months was 98% in shunt-treated patients. Cardiovascular mortality and nonfatal ischemic stroke were not different between the groups; however, major adverse cardiac events were more common in those patients assigned to the shunt compared with sham (6.9% vs 2.7%; P = 0.018). More patients randomized to the shunt had an increase in right ventricular volume of ≥30% compared with the sham control (39% vs 28%, respectively; P < 0.001), but right ventricular dysfunction was uncommon and not different between the treatment groups. In responders (n = 313), the shunt was superior to sham (win ratio: 1.36 [95% CI: 1.02-1.83]; P = 0.037, with 51% fewer HF events [incidence rate ratio: 0.49 [95% CI: 0.25-0.95]; P = 0.034]). In nonresponders (n = 265), atrial shunting was inferior to sham (win ratio: 0.73 [95% CI: 0.54-0.98]). CONCLUSIONS: At 2 years of follow-up in REDUCE LAP-HF II, there was no difference in efficacy between the atrial shunt and sham groups in the overall trial group. The potential clinical benefit identified in the responder group after 1 and 2 years of follow-up is currently being evaluated in the RESPONDER-HF (Re-Evaluation of the Corvia Atrial Shunt Device in a Precision Medicine Trial to Determine Efficacy in Mildly Reduced or Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure) trial. (Reduce Elevated Left Atrial Pressure in Patients With Heart Failure II [REDUCE LAP-HF II]; NCT03088033).

Incidence, Predictors, and Clinical Outcomes of Device-Related Thrombus in the Amulet IDE Trial.

BACKGROUND: Device-related thrombus (DRT) following left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) can lead to adverse clinical outcomes. DRT rates and outcomes from randomized trials are limited. OBJECTIVES: This analysis investigated the incidence, predictors, and clinical outcomes of DRT following LAAO in the Amulet IDE (AMPLATZER Amulet LAA Occluder Trial) trial. METHODS: Successful implants occurred in 903 patients with an Amulet occluder (dual occlusive mechanism device) and 885 patients with a Watchman device (single occlusive mechanism device). These patients were then followed through 18 months and DRT was assessed by transesophageal echocardiography. RESULTS: The overall incidence of DRT was 3.9% (n = 70) with 3.4% (n = 30) in dual occlusive mechanism device patients and 4.8% (n = 40) in single occlusive mechanism device patients. Most DRTs (n = 19 of 31) were identified early (≤45 days) on the dual occlusive mechanism device, whereas most of the DRTs (n = 31 of 42) were identified late (>45 days) on the single occlusive mechanism device. Strong predictors of DRT included atrial fibrillation at time of procedure (HR: 2.44; 95% CI: 1.42-4.22; P < 0.01), female sex (HR: 1.65; 95% CI: 1.01-2.71; P = 0.04), and older age (HR: 1.04; 95% CI: 1.01-1.08; P = 0.02). There were no stroke events following DRT in the dual occlusive mechanism device group and 3 stroke events following DRT in the single occlusive mechanism device group. Patients with DRT were at a greater risk for cardiovascular mortality compared with non-DRT patients (8.7% vs 3.9%; HR: 2.33; 95% CI: 1.01-5.39; P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Incidence of DRT following LAAO was low. Early DRTs are seen with the dual occlusive mechanism device and late DRTs are seen with the single occlusive mechanism device. Increased cardiovascular mortality risk in patients with DRT should be further investigated. (AMPLATZER Amulet LAA Occluder Trial; NCT02879448).

3-Year Outcomes From the Amplatzer Amulet Left Atrial Appendage Occluder Randomized Controlled Trial (Amulet IDE).

BACKGROUND: The Amulet (Abbott) left atrial appendage occluder investigational device exemption trial is the largest randomized trial evaluating the safety and effectiveness of the Amulet left atrial appendage occluder compared with the Watchman 2.5 device (Boston Scientific) through 5 years. OBJECTIVES: This analysis evaluated the device effect on 3-year outcomes in the Amulet investigational device exemption trial. METHODS: The medication regimen and key clinical outcomes were reported through 3 years including: 1) the composite of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism (SE); 2) the composite of all strokes, SE, or cardiovascular (CV) death; 3) major bleeding; and 4) all-cause death and CV death. RESULTS: A total of 1,878 patients at 108 sites were randomized. A significantly higher percentage of patients were free of oral anticoagulation usage at 3 years with Amulet (96.2%) vs Watchman (92.5%) (P < 0.01). Clinical outcomes were comparable for the composite of ischemic stroke or SE (5.0% vs 4.6%; P = 0.69); the composite of all strokes, SE, or CV death (11.1% vs 12.7%; P = 0.31); major bleeding (16.1% vs 14.7%; P = 0.46); all-cause death (14.6% vs 17.9%; P = 0.08); and CV death (6.6% vs 8.5%; P = 0.14) for Amulet and Watchman, respectively. Through 3 years, device factors (device-related thrombus or peridevice leak ≥3 mm) preceded ischemic stroke events and CV deaths more frequently in Watchman compared with Amulet patients. CONCLUSIONS: The Amulet occluder demonstrated continued safety and effectiveness with over 96% free of oral anticoagulation usage through 3 years in a high-risk population compared to the Watchman device. (AMPLATZER Amulet LAA Occluder Trial [Amulet IDE]; NCT02879448).

Outcomes of the roll-in cohort of the Amulet IDE trial of left atrial appendage occlusion.

Background: Left atrial appendage (LAA) occlusion is an alternative therapy to oral anticoagulants to reduce stroke risk in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). The Amulet IDE trial compared the Amplatzer™ Amulet™ occluder (Abbott) with the Watchman™ 2.5 device (Boston Scientific) for LAA occlusion in patients with NVAF. Objective: The purpose of this study was to describe outcomes of the Amulet IDE trial roll-in cohort. Methods: At US sites up to 3 patients per implanter could be implanted with the Amulet occluder in the roll-in phase. The primary Endpoints in the Amulet IDE trial included safety (composite of procedure-related complications, all-cause death, or major bleeding at 12 months), effectiveness (composite of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism at 18 months), and rate of LAA occlusion at 45 days. Results: A total of 201 roll-in patients were enrolled. Device success occurred in 99% of patients, and device closure (residual jet ≤5 mm) was observed in 98.9% of patients at 45 days. The safety endpoint rate was numerically higher (worse) in the roll-in cohort compared to the randomized Amulet occluder cohort (18.4% vs 14.5%). Six patients (3.1%) experienced an ischemic stroke and 0 patients with a systemic embolism within 18 months, which was similar to the primary effectiveness endpoint rate in the randomized Amulet occluder cohort (2.8%). Conclusions: Despite lack of experience of the operators with the Amulet occluder in the roll-in phase, device implant success was high, a high rate of device closure was achieved, and low stroke rates were observed in patients with NVAF.

Acute Device-Related Thrombus after Watchman Device Implant.

Atrial fibrillation is characterized by irregularly irregular heart rhythm with an increased morbidity and mortality. It is associated with an increased risk of thromboembolism due to formation of blood clot in the left atrium. Most of these blood clots are formed in the left atrial appendage. The risk of blood clot formation is reduced with the use of anticoagulants. The patients who cannot take anticoagulants due to an increased bleeding risk can undergo percutaneous left atrial appendage (LAA) closure. A Watchman device is used for this purpose. LAA closure with the Watchman device is associated with some adverse effects, and one of them is device-related thrombus. Currently, there are no specific guidelines for the management of device-related thrombus. We present a case of Watchman device-related thrombus which developed 16 hours after the device placement. We will also discuss various options for the management of acute thrombosis.

Congenital Absence of Left Atrial Appendage.

Isolated absence of left atrial appendage is a very rare entity and is usually encountered as an incidental finding during routine imaging for other purposes. Lately, with increasing fund of knowledge about its potential role in cardio embolic phenomena, we have seen an increased trend in the use different techniques to exclude left atrial appendage from main left atrial chamber, in an effort to alleviate the stroke risk and therefore the need for long term anticoagulation. Clinical implications of absent left atrial appendage in such patients remains a mystery.

Ablation of epicardial macroreentrant ventricular tachycardia associated with idiopathic nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy by a percutaneous transthoracic approach.

Characterization of the substrate and mechanism of epicardial ventricular tachycardia (VT) associated with idiopathic nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy is limited. We report a case of successful mapping and ablation of an epicardial VT by a percutaneous transthoracic approach in a patient with idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy, frequent VT, and previously unsuccessful endocardial ablation. Evidence of myocardial scar was limited to the epicardium. Electroanatomic and entrainment mapping defined a figure-of-eight macroreentrant circuit within the epicardial scar. VT terminated at the onset of low-power radiofrequency application to the central isthmus of the circuit. VT was no longer induced and did not recur during long-term follow-up.