Impact of gender in patients with device-related thrombosis after left atrial appendage closure - A sub-analysis from the multicenter EUROC-DRT-registry.

BACKGROUND: Device-related thrombosis (DRT) is a common finding after left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) and is associated with worse outcomes. As women are underrepresented in clinical studies, further understanding of sex differences in DRT patients is warranted. METHODS AND RESULTS: This sub-analysis from the EUROC-DRT-registry compromises 176 patients with diagnosis of DRT after LAAC. Women, who accounted for 34.7% (61/176) of patients, were older (78.0 ± 6.7 vs. 74.9 ± 9.1 years, p = .06) with lower rates of comorbidities. While DRT was detected significantly later in women (173 ± 267 vs. 127 ± 192 days, p = .01), anticoagulation therapy was escalated similarly, mainly with initiation of novel oral anticoagulant (NOAC), vitamin K antagonist (VKA) or heparin. DRT resolution was achieved in 67.5% (27/40) of women and in 75.0% (54/72) of men (p = .40). In the remaining cases, an intensification/switch of anticoagulation was conducted in 50.% (9/18) of men and in 41.7% (5/12) of women. Final resolution was achieved in 72.5% (29/40) cases in women, and in 81.9% (59/72) cases in men (p = .24). Women were followed-up for a similar time as men (779 ± 520 vs. 908 ± 687 days, p = .51). Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed no difference in mortality rates in women (Hazard Ratio [HR]: 1.73, 95%-Confidence interval [95%-CI]: .68-4.37, p = .25) and no differences in stroke (HR: .83, 95%-CI: .30-2.32, p = .72) within 2 years after LAAC. CONCLUSION: Evaluation of risk factors and outcome revealed no differences between men and women, with DRT in women being diagnosed significantly later. Women should be monitored closely to assess for DRT formation/resolution. Treatment strategies appear to be equally effective.

Contrast-free left atrial appendage occlusion in patients using the LAMBRE™ device.

BACKGROUND: Advances in imaging have led to procedural optimization of left atrial appendage closure (LAAC). Contrast-free approaches, guided merely by echocardiography, have been established, however data on this topic remains scarce. In this analysis, we assessed contrast-free procedural results with the LAMBRE LAAC device. METHODS: The multicenter retrospective BoBoMa (Bonn/Bordeaux/Mainz)-Registry included a total of 118 patients that underwent LAAC with LAMBRE devices omitting contrast-dye. Baseline and echocardiographic characteristics as well as intra- and postprocedural complications and outcomes were assessed. RESULTS: Patients were at a mean age of 77.5 ± 7.5 years with high thromboembolic and bleeding risk (CHADS-VASc-score 4.6 ± 1.4, HAS-BLED-score 3.7 ± 1.0, respectively). Renal function was impaired with a mean glomerular filtration rate (GFR) of 50 ± 22 ml/min. Mean procedural time was 47.2 ± 37.5  minutes with a mean radiation dose of 4.75 ± 5.25 Gy*cm2. Device success, defined as proper deployment in a correct position, was achieved in 97.5% (115/118) of cases with repositioning of the occluder in 7.6% (9/118) and resizing in 3.4% (4/118) of cases. No relevant peri-device leakage (>3 mm) was observed with 42% of occluders being implanted in an ostial position. Periprocedural complications occurred in 6.8% (8/118) of cases, including two cases of device embolization and one case of clinically-relevant pericardial effusion requiring surgical intervention. Other complications included pericardial effusion (2.5%, 3/118) and vascular access site complications (1.7%, 2/118). CONCLUSION: Echocardiography-guided contrast-free LAAC using the LAMBRE device is safe and feasible. Further prospective studies including the direct comparison of devices as well as imaging techniques are warranted in contrast-free LAAC.

Symptomatic vs. non-symptomatic device-related thrombus after LAAC: a sub-analysis from the multicenter EUROC-DRT registry.

BACKGROUND: Device-related thrombus (DRT) after left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) is associated with adverse outcomes, i.e. ischemic stroke or systemic embolism (SE). Data on predictors of stroke/SE in the context of DRT are limited. AIMS: This study aimed to identify predisposing factors for stroke/SE in DRT patients. In addition, the temporal connection of stroke/SE to DRT diagnosis was analyzed. METHODS: The EUROC-DRT registry included 176 patients, in whom DRT after LAAC were diagnosed. Patients with symptomatic DRT, defined as stroke/SE in the context of DRT diagnosis, were compared against patients with non-symptomatic DRT. Baseline characteristics, anti-thrombotic regimens, device position, and timing of stroke/SE were compared. RESULTS: Stroke/SE occurred in 25/176 (14.2%) patients diagnosed with DRT (symptomatic DRT). Stroke/SE occurred after a median of 198 days (IQR 37-558) after LAAC. In 45.8% stroke/SE occurred within one month before/after DRT diagnosis (DRT-related stroke). Patients with symptomatic DRT had lower left ventricular ejection fractions (50.0 ± 9.1% vs. 54.2 ± 11.0%, p = 0.03) and higher rates of non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (84.0% vs. 64.9%, p = 0.06). Other baseline parameters and device positions were not different. Most ischemic events occurred among patients with single antiplatelet therapy (50%), however, stroke/SE was also observed under dual antiplatelet therapy (25%) or oral anticoagulation (20%). CONCLUSION: Stroke/SE are documented in 14.2% and occur both in close temporal relation to the DRT finding and chronologically independently therefrom. Identification of risk factors remains cumbersome, putting all DRT patients at substantial risk for stroke/SE. Further studies are necessary to minimize the risk of DRT and ischemic events.