Catheter-tissue contact optimizes pulsed electric field ablation with a large area focal catheter.

INTRODUCTION: Pulsed electric field (PEF) ablation relies on the intersection of a critical voltage gradient with tissue to cause cell death. Field-based lesion formation with PEF technologies may still depend on catheter-tissue contact (CTC). The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of CTC on PEF lesion formation with an investigational large area focal (LAF) catheter in a preclinical model. METHODS: PEF ablation via a 10-spline LAF catheter was used to create discrete right ventricle (RV) lesions and atrial lesion sets in 10 swine (eight acute, two chronic). Local impedance (LI) was used to assess CTC. Lesions were assigned to three cohorts using LI above baseline: no tissue contact (NTC: ≤∆10 Ω, close proximity to tissue), low tissue contact (LTC: ∆11-29 Ω), and high tissue contact (HTC: ≥∆30 Ω). Acute animals were infused with triphenyl tetrazolium chloride (TTC) and killed ≥2 h post-treatment. Chronic animals were remapped 30 days post-index procedure and stained with infused TTC. RESULTS: Mean (± SD) RV treatment sizes between LTC (n = 14) and HTC (n = 17) lesions were not significantly different (depth: 5.65 ± 1.96 vs. 5.68 ± 2.05 mm, p = .999; width: 15.68 ± 5.22 vs. 16.98 ± 4.45 mm, p = .737), while mean treatment size for NTC lesions (n = 6) was significantly smaller (1.67 ± 1.16 mm depth, 5.97 ± 4.48 mm width, p < .05). For atrial lesion sets, acute and chronic conduction block were achieved with both LTC (N = 7) and HTC (N = 6), and NTC resulted in gaps. CONCLUSIONS: PEF ablation with a specialized LAF catheter in a swine model is dependent on CTC. LI as an indicator of CTC may aid in the creation of consistent transmural lesions in PEF ablation.

Severity of Ischemic Stroke After Left Atrial Appendage Closure vs Nonwarfarin Oral Anticoagulants.

BACKGROUND: Strokes after left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) prophylaxis are generally less severe than those after warfarin prophylaxis-thought to be secondary to more hemorrhagic strokes with warfarin. Hemorrhagic strokes are similarly infrequent with direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) prophylaxis, so the primary subtype after either LAAC or DOAC prophylaxis is ischemic stroke (IS). OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare the severity of IS using the modified Rankin Scale in atrial fibrillation patients receiving prophylaxis with DOACs vs LAAC. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed of consecutive patients undergoing LAAC at 8 centers who developed an IS (ISLAAC) compared with contemporaneous consecutive patients who developed IS during treatment with DOACs (ISDOAC). The primary outcome was disabling/fatal stroke (modified Rankin Scale 3-5) at discharge and 3 months later. RESULTS: Compared with ISDOAC patients (n = 322), ISLAAC patients (n = 125) were older (age 77.2 ± 13.4 years vs 73.1 ± 11.9 years; P = 0.002), with higher HAS-BLED scores (3.0 vs 2.0; P = 0.004) and more frequent prior bleeding events (54.4% vs 23.6%; P < 0.001), but similar CHA2DS2-VASc scores (5.0 vs 5.0; P = 0.28). Strokes were less frequently disabling/fatal with ISLAAC than ISDOAC at both hospital discharge (38.3% vs 70.3%; P < 0.001) and 3 months later (33.3% vs 56.2%; P < 0.001). Differences in stroke severity persisted after propensity score matching. By multivariate regression analysis, ISLAAC was independently associated with fewer disabling/fatal strokes at discharge (OR: 0.22; 95% CI: 0.13-0.39; P < 0.001) and 3 months (OR: 0.25; 95% CI: 0.12-0.50; P < 0.001), and fewer deaths at 3 months (OR: 0.28; 95% CI: 0.12-0.64; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Ischemic strokes in patients with atrial fibrillation are less often disabling or fatal with LAAC than DOAC prophylaxis.

Rationale and design of a randomized study comparing the Watchman FLX device to DOACs in patients with atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous left atrial appendage (LAA) closure (LAAC) was developed as a nonpharmacologic alternative to oral anticoagulants (OACs) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) who are at an increased risk for stroke or systemic embolism. The Watchman device permanently seals off the LAA to prevent thrombi from escaping into the circulation. Previous randomized trials have established the safety and efficacy of LAAC compared to warfarin. However, direct OACs (DOACs) have become the preferred pharmacologic strategy for stroke prevention in patients with AF, and there is limited data comparing Watchman FLX to DOACs in a broad AF patient population. CHAMPION-AF is designed to prospectively determine whether LAAC with Watchman FLX is a reasonable first-line alternative to DOACs in patients with AF who are indicated for OAC therapy. STUDY DESIGN: A total of 3,000 patients with a CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥2 (men) or ≥3 (women) were randomized to Watchman FLX or DOAC in a 1:1 allocation at 142 global clinical sites. Patients in the device arm were to be treated with DOAC and aspirin, DOAC alone, or DAPT for at least 3 months postimplant followed by aspirin or P2Y12 inhibitor for 1-year. Control patients were required to take an approved DOAC for the duration of the trial. Clinical follow-up visits are scheduled at 3- and 12-months, and then annually through 5 years; LAA imaging is required at 4 months in the device group. Two primary end points will be evaluated at 3 years: (1) composite of stroke (ischemic/hemorrhagic), cardiovascular death, and systemic embolism compared for noninferiority, and (2) nonprocedural bleeding (International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis [ISTH] major and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding) tested for superiority in the device arm against DOACs. The third primary noninferiority end point is the composite of ischemic stroke and systemic embolism at 5 years. Secondary end points include 3- and 5-year rates of (1) ISTH-defined major bleeding and (2) the composite of cardiovascular death, all stroke, systemic embolism, and nonprocedural ISTH bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: This study will prospectively evaluate whether LAAC with the Watchman FLX device is a reasonable alternative to DOACs in patients with AF. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04394546.

Two-Year Outcomes With a Next-Generation Left Atrial Appendage Device: Final Results of the PINNACLE FLX Trial.

Background The PINNACLE FLX (Protection Against Embolism for Non-valvular AF [Atrial Fibrillation] Patients: Investigational Device Evaluation of the Watchman FLX LAA [Left Atrial Appendage] Closure Technology) trial evaluated the safety and efficacy of a next-generation left atrial appendage closure device (WATCHMAN FLX; Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA). At 1 year, the study met the primary end points of safety and anatomical efficacy/appendage closure. This final report of the PINNACLE FLX trial includes the prespecified secondary end point of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism at 2 years, also making it the first report of 2-year outcomes with this next-generation left atrial appendage closure device. Methods and Results Patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation with CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥2 (men) or ≥3 (women), with an appropriate rationale for left atrial appendage closure, were enrolled to receive the left atrial appendage closure device at 29 US centers. Adverse events were assessed by an independent clinical events committee, and imaging was assessed by independent core laboratories. Among 395 implanted patients (36% women; mean age, 74 years; CHA2DS2-VASc, 4.2±1.5), the secondary efficacy end point of 2-year ischemic stroke or systemic embolism was met, with an absolute rate of 3.4% (annualized rate, 1.7%) and an upper 1-sided 95% confidence bound of 5.3%, which was superior to the 8.7% performance goal. Two-year rates of adverse events were as follows: 9.3% all-cause mortality, 5.5% cardiovascular death, 3.4% all stroke, and 10.1% major bleeding (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 3 or 5). There were no additional systemic embolisms, device embolizations, pericardial effusions, or symptomatic device-related thrombi after 1 year. Conclusions The secondary end point of 2-year stroke or systemic embolism was met at 3.4%. In these final results of the PINNACLE FLX trial, the next-generation WATCHMAN FLX device demonstrated favorable safety and efficacy outcomes.

Evaluation of Multimodality LAA Leak Closure Methods Following Incomplete Occlusion: The LAA Leak Study.

BACKGROUND: Incomplete left atrial appendage (LAA) closure is an evolving topic of clinical significance and thromboembolic potential, with recent long-term studies suggesting lower cutoffs for relevant leak size. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this prospective observational study was to assess 3 different closure techniques for persistent peridevice leaks after incomplete LAA closure and compare their efficacy and safety outcomes. METHODS: We studied 160 patients (mean age 72 ± 9 years; 71% men) who underwent 1 of the 3 available modalities (detachable embolization coils, vascular plugs or septal occluders, and radiofrequency ablation) for residual central or eccentric leak closure. Both acute postprocedural success (closure or <1-mm leak at the end of the procedure) and closure at 1-year follow-up transesophageal echocardiography imaging were evaluated. RESULTS: Of 160 patients, 0.6%, 41.3%, and 58.1% had mild (1-2 mm), moderate (3-5 mm), and severe (≥5 mm) leaks, respectively. Baseline LAA closure type was 72.5% Watchman FLX, 16.3% Lariat, 5.6% surgical ligation, 1.9% AtriClip, and 1.9% Amulet. Successful closure (0- or <1-mm leak) was seen in 100% of patients in all cohorts following intervention, with overall complete closure (0-1 mm) or mild or minimal leaks (1-2 mm) on 1-year follow-up transesophageal echocardiography seen in 100% of the atrial septal occluder or vascular plug cohort, 85.9% of the coil cohort, and 83.3% of the radiofrequency ablation cohort (P < 0.001). Two patients (1.3%) experienced cardiac tamponade, and there were no deaths or other complications. CONCLUSIONS: Peridevice leaks can safely and effectively be closed using 3 different modalities depending on size and location.

Impact of Peridevice Leak on 5-Year Outcomes After Left Atrial Appendage Closure.

BACKGROUND: In the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) clinical trials of left atrial appendage (LAA) closure, a postimplantation peridevice leak (PDL) of ≤5 mm (PDL≤5) was accepted as sufficient LAA "closure." However, the clinical consequences of these PDLs on subsequent thromboembolism are poorly characterized. OBJECTIVES: We sought to assess the impact of PDL≤5 on clinical outcomes after implantation of the Watchman device. METHODS: Using combined data from the FDA studies PROTECT-AF (Watchman Left Atrial Appendage System for Embolic Protection in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation), PREVAIL (Evaluation of the Watchman Left Atrial Appendage Closure Device in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation vs Long Term Warfarin Therapy), and CAP2 (Continued Access to PREVAIL), we assessed patients with successful device implantation for PDL by means of protocol-mandated transesophageal echocardiograms (TEEs) at 45 days and 1 year. Five-year outcomes were assessed as a function of the absence or presence of PDL≤5. RESULTS: The cohort included 1,054 patients: mean age 74 ± 8.3 years, 65% male, and CHA2DS2-VASc 4.1 ± 1.4. TEE imaging at 45 days revealed 634 patients (60.2%) without and 404 (38.3%) with PDL≤5, and 1-year TEE revealed 704 patients (71.6%) without and 272 (27.7%) with PDL≤5. The presence of PDL≤5 at 1 year, but not at 45 days, was associated with an increased 5-year risk of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism (adjusted HR: 1.94; 95% CI: 1.15-3.29; P = 0.014), largely driven by an increase in nondisabling stroke (HR: 1.97; 95% CI: 1.03-3.78; P = 0.04), while disabling or fatal stroke rates were similar (HR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.19-2.46; P = 0.56). PDL≤5 was not associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular or unexplained death (HR: 1.20; P = 0.45) or all-cause death (HR: 0.87; P = 0.42). CONCLUSIONS: PDL≤5 at 1 year after percutaneous LAA closure with the Watchman device are associated with increased thromboembolism, driven by increased nondisabling stroke, but similar mortality. (Watchman Left Atrial Appendage System for Embolic Protection in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation [PROTECT-AF; NCT00129545]; Evaluation of the Watchman Left Atrial Appendage Closure Device in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation vs Long Term Warfarin Therapy [PREVAIL; NCT01182441]; Continued Access to PREVAIL [CAP2; NCT01760291]).

In vivo porcine characterization of atrial lesion safety and efficacy utilizing a circular pulsed-field ablation catheter including assessment of collateral damage to adjacent tissue in supratherapeutic ablation applications.

INTRODUCTION: Pulsed-field ablation (PFA), an ablative method that causes cell death by irreversible electroporation, has potential safety advantages over radiofrequency ablation and cryoablation. Pulmonary vein (PV) isolation was performed in a porcine model to characterize safety and performance of a novel, fully-integrated biphasic PFA system comprising a multi-channel generator, variable loop circular catheter, and integrated PFA mapping software module. METHODS: Eight healthy porcine subjects were included. To evaluate safety, multiple ablations were performed, including sites not generally targeted for therapeutic ablation, such as the right inferior PV lumen, right superior PV ostium, and adjacent to the esophagus and phrenic nerve. To evaluate the efficacy, animals were recovered, followed for 30(±3) days, then re-mapped. Gross pathological and histopathological examinations assessed procedural injuries, chronic thrombosis, tissue ablation, penetration depth, healing, and inflammatory response. RESULTS: All eight animals survived follow-up. PV narrowing was not observed acutely nor at follow-up, even when ablation was performed deep to the PV ostium. No injury was seen grossly or histologically in adjacent structures. All PVs were durably isolated, confirmed by bidirectional block at re-map procedure. Histological examination showed complete, transmural necrosis around the circumference of the ablated section of right PVs. CONCLUSION: This preclinical evaluation of a fully-integrated PFA system demonstrated effective and durable ablation of cardiac tissue and PV isolation without collateral damage to adjacent structures, even when ablation was performed in more extreme settings than those used therapeutically. Histological staining confirmed complete transmural cell necrosis around the circumference of the PV ostium at 30 days.

Antithrombotic Therapy After Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Pivotal trials of percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) used specific postprocedure treatment protocols. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate patterns of postprocedure care after LAAO with the Watchman device in clinical practice and compare the risk of adverse events for different discharge antithrombotic strategies. METHODS: We evaluated patients in the LAAO Registry of the National Cardiovascular Data Registry who underwent LAAO with the Watchman device between 2016 and 2018. We assessed adherence to the full postprocedure trial protocol including standardized follow-up, imaging, and antithrombotic agents and then evaluated the most commonly used antithrombotic strategies and compared the rates and risk of adverse events at 45 days and 6 months by means of multivariable COX frailty regression. RESULTS: Among 31,994 patients undergoing successful LAAO, only 12.2% received the full postprocedure treatment protocol studied in pivotal trials; the most common protocol deviations were with discharge antithrombotic medications. The most common discharge medication strategies were warfarin and aspirin (36.9%), direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) and aspirin (20.8%), warfarin only (13.5%), DOAC only (12.3%), and dual antiplatelet therapy (5.0%). In multivariable Cox frailty regression, the adjusted risk of any adverse event through the 45-day follow-up visit were significantly lower for discharge on warfarin alone (HR: 0.692; 95% CI: 0.569-0.841) and DOAC alone (HR: 0.731; 95% CI: 0.574-0.930) compared with warfarin and aspirin. Warfarin alone retained lower risk at the 6-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: In contemporary U.S. practice, practitioners rarely used the full U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved postprocedure treatment protocols studied in pivotal trials of the Watchman device. Discharge after implantation on warfarin or DOAC without concomitant aspirin was associated with lower risk of adverse outcomes.

Radiofrequency Energy Applications Targeting Significant Residual Leaks After Watchman Implantation: A Prospective, Multicenter Experience.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of radiofrequency (RF) energy applications targeting the atrial side of a significant residual leak in patients with acute and chronic evidence of incomplete percutaneous left atrial appendage (LAA) occlusion. BACKGROUND: RF applications have been proved to prevent recanalization of intracranial aneurysms after coil embolization, thereby favoring complete sealing. From a mechanistic standpoint, in vitro and in vivo experiments have demonstrated that RF promotes collagen deposition and tissue retraction. METHODS: Forty-three patients (mean age 75 ± 7 years mean CHA2DS2-VASc score 4.6 ± 1.4, mean HAS-BLED score 4.0 ± 1.1) with residual leaks ≥4 mm after Watchman implantation were enrolled. Procedural success was defined as complete LAA occlusion or presence of a mild or minimal (1- to 2-mm) peridevice leak on follow-up transesophageal echocardiography (TEE), which was performed approximately 45 days after the procedure. RESULTS: RF-based leak closure was performed acutely after Watchman implantation in 19 patients (44.2%) or scheduled after evidence of significant leaks on follow-up TEE in 24 others (55.8%). The median leak size was 5 mm (range: 4-7 mm). On average, 18 ± 7 RF applications per patient (mean maximum contact force 16 ± 3 g, mean power 44 ± 2 W, mean RF time 5.1 ± 2.5 minutes) were performed targeting the atrial edge of the leak. Post-RF median leak size was 0 mm (range: 0-1 mm). A very low rate (2.3% [n = 1]) of major periprocedural complications was observed. Follow-up TEE revealed complete LAA sealing in 23 patients (53.5%) and negligible residual leaks in 15 (34.9%). CONCLUSIONS: RF applications targeting the atrial edge of a significant peri-Watchman leak may promote LAA sealing via tissue remodeling, without increasing complications. (RF Applications for Residual LAA Leaks [REACT]; NCT04726943).

Left atrial appendage closure in patients with prohibitive anatomy: Insights from PINNACLE FLX.

BACKGROUND: Watchman 2.5 (Boston Scientific Inc, Marlborough, MA) implant success approaches 95% in registries, yet many patients are not attempted because of complex left atrial appendage (LAA) anatomy. Watchman FLX can expand the range of ostium width (14-31.5 mm) and depth available for LAA closure. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of Watchman FLX in patients with a failed Watchman 2.5 attempt or prohibitive LAA anatomy. METHODS: The roll-in (n = 58) and primary effectiveness (n = 400) cohorts of the PINNACLE FLX trial comprised the study population. Subjects were identified who previously failed implantation of Watchman 2.5 (n = 11) or were not attempted because of prohibitive LAA anatomy (n = 88). Demographic characteristics, implant procedure details, and TEE follow-up data were compared to controls composed of enrollees not meeting these criteria (n = 359). RESULTS: Watchman FLX LAA closure was successfully implanted in all subjects with a prior failed Watchman 2.5 attempt (n = 11 of 11). Subjects with previously failed Watchman 2.5 were more likely to receive a 35 mm FLX device than controls (27.3% vs 7.3%; P = .047). Patients with prohibitive anatomy had smaller LAA dimensions than did controls (diameter 18.0 ± 4 mm vs 20.4 ± 3 mm; P < .001 and length 23.7 ± 5 mm vs 28.9 ± 5 mm; P < .001). There was no difference in age, sex, CHA2DS2-VASc score, HAS-BLED score, or primary efficacy between cohorts. Transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) at 12 months showed zero leak in 90.9% in the failed Watchman 2.5 cohort, 91.3% in the prohibitive anatomy cohort, and 89.5% in the control cohort (P = .84). Overall and cardiovascular mortality was lower in the prohibitive anatomy cohort (1.2% vs 8.8% in controls; P = .02). CONCLUSION: Watchman FLX implantation in patients with a prior failed Watchman 2.5 attempt or prohibitive LAA anatomy remained safe and highly effective. The association of reduced overall mortality with smaller LAA dimension warrants future study.

Primary Outcome Evaluation of a Next-Generation Left Atrial Appendage Closure Device: Results From the PINNACLE FLX Trial.

BACKGROUND: Left atrial appendage (LAA) occlusion provides an alternative to oral anticoagulation for thromboembolic risk reduction in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Since regulatory approval in 2015, the WATCHMAN device has been the only LAA closure device available for clinical use in the United States. The PINNACLE FLX study (Protection Against Embolism for Nonvalvular AF Patients: Investigational Device Evaluation of the Watchman FLX LAA Closure Technology) evaluated the safety and effectiveness of the next-generation WATCHMAN FLX LAA closure device in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation in whom oral anticoagulation is indicated, but who have an appropriate rationale to seek a nonpharmaceutical alternative. METHODS: This was a prospective, nonrandomized, multicenter US Food and Drug Administration study. The primary safety end point was the occurrence of one of the following events within 7 days after the procedure or by hospital discharge, whichever was later: death, ischemic stroke, systemic embolism, or device- or procedure-related events requiring cardiac surgery. The primary effectiveness end point was the incidence of effective LAA closure (peri-device flow ≤5 mm), as assessed by the echocardiography core laboratory at 12-month follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 400 patients were enrolled. The mean age was 73.8±8.6 years and the mean CHA2DS2-VASc score was 4.2±1.5. The incidence of the primary safety end point was 0.5% with a 1-sided 95% upper CI of 1.6%, meeting the performance goal of 4.2% (P<0.0001). The incidence of the primary effectiveness end point was 100%, with a 1-sided 95% lower CI of 99.1%, again meeting the performance goal of 97.0% (P<0.0001). Device-related thrombus was reported in 7 patients, no patients experienced pericardial effusion requiring open cardiac surgery, and there were no device embolizations. CONCLUSIONS: LAA closure with this next-generation LAA closure device was associated with a low incidence of adverse events and a high incidence of anatomic closure. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02702271.

Follow-up imaging after left atrial appendage closure.

BACKGROUND: Because device-related thrombus (DRT) portends a poor prognosis after left atrial appendage closure with the Watchman device, surveillance transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) is recommended at 45 days and 1 year. However, oral anticoagulants are just discontinued at 45 days, rendering this early TEE unlikely to detect DRT. Indeed, DRT is most likely to occur after instituting aspirin monotherapy. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the alternative strategy of first TEE imaging (or computed tomography) at 4 months post-Watchman implantation. METHODS: After Food and Drug Administration approval, consecutive patients undergoing Watchman implantation at 2 centers received TEE or CT at 4 months and 1 year, along with a truncated drug regimen: 6 weeks of an oral anticoagulant (or clopidogrel in a subset) plus aspirin, then 6 weeks of dual antiplatelet therapy, and finally aspirin monotherapy. RESULTS: Of the 530-patient cohort (mean age 78.7±7.9 years; 65.5% (n = 347) male; CHA2DS2-VASc score 4.5±1.4), 465 patients (87.7%) received 4-month imaging: 83.0% (440 of 530) TEE and 4.7% (25 of 530) computed tomography. Over a median follow-up of 12 months, 16 ischemic strokes (ISs), 8 transient ischemic attacks, and 1 systemic embolization occurred. Importantly, no IS occurred between 45 days and 4 months; the sole transient ischemic attack in this period (at ∼2 months) occurred 1 week after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. DRT was detected in 2.4% (11 of 465) at 4 months and 0.9% (2 of 214) at 1 year. No IS, but 1 leg embolization, was observed after DRT detection. CONCLUSION: Delaying the first imaging post-Watchman implantation to 4 months was associated with no IS between 45 days and 4 months, the "vulnerable" period of this follow-up strategy.

Long-Term Safety and Efficacy in Continued Access Left Atrial Appendage Closure Registries.

BACKGROUND: Long-term data on the safety and efficacy of left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) for stroke prevention in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation remain limited. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate 4.5- to 5-year data in 2 U.S. Food and Drug Association LAAC mandated registries (CAP [Continued Access to PROTECT-AF] and CAP2 [Continued Access to PREVAIL]) for safety and efficacy. METHODS: Two registries of patients implanted with LAAC devices provide the largest source of follow-up data. Both accompanied their respective randomized clinical trials, PROTECT-AF (Watchman Left Atrial Appendage System for Embolic PROTECTion in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation) and PREVAIL (Prospective Randomized Evaluation of the WATCHMAN LAA Closure Device In Patients with Atrial Fibrillation versus Long Term Warfarin Therapy), which used the same endpoints (primary efficacy of composite of stroke, systemic embolism, cardiovascular/unexplained death, and safety). RESULTS: CAP included 566 patients with an average follow-up of 50.1 months (2,293 patient-years), and CAP2 included 578 patients with an average follow-up of 50.3 months (2,227 patient-years). CAP2 patients were significantly older and had higher CHA2DS2-VASc (congestive heart failure, hypertension, age ≥75 years, diabetes mellitus, stroke/transient ischemic attack, vascular disease, age 65 to 74 years, sex category) scores (4.51 vs. 3.88; p < 0.001). Procedural success was similar in both (94%). The primary composite endpoint occurred at a rate of 3.05 per 100 patient-years in CAP and 4.80 per 100 patient-years in CAP2; events contributing to this endpoint were most commonly cardiovascular/unexplained death (1.69 per 100 patient-years for CAP and 2.92 per 100 patient-years for CAP2). Hemorrhagic stroke was significantly less than ischemic stroke (0.17 per 100 patient-years in CAP and 0.09 per 100 patient-years in CAP2), and total stroke rates were significantly less than predicted by CHA2DS2-VASc score (78% reduction with CAP, 69% reduction with CAP2). CONCLUSIONS: These registries, which contain the longest and largest follow-up data of patients with the Watchman device, support LAAC as a safe and effective therapy for long-term anticoagulation in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, and document the lowest rate of hemorrhagic stroke identified in this population.

Propensity-Matched Comparison of Oral Anticoagulation Versus Antiplatelet Therapy After Left Atrial Appendage Closure With WATCHMAN.

OBJECTIVES: In this propensity-matched analysis of post-left atrial appendage closure antithrombotic therapy, the safety and effectiveness of oral anticoagulation (OAC) and antiplatelet therapy (APT) were compared. BACKGROUND: Left atrial appendage closure with the WATCHMAN device is an alternative to OAC in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, who are at high bleeding risk. Initial trials included 45 days of post-implantation OAC, but registry data suggest that APT may suffice. METHODS: Patients from the PROTECT-AF (Watchman Left Atrial Appendage System for Embolic Protection in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation), PREVAIL (Watchman LAA Closure Device in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Versus Long Term Warfarin Therapy), CAP (Continued Access to PROTECT-AF), CAP2 (Continued Access to PREVAIL), ASAP (ASA Plavix Feasibility Study With Watchman Left Atrial Appendage Closure Technology), and EWOLUTION (Registry on WATCHMAN Outcomes in Real-Life Utilization) trials receiving either OAC or APT post-implantation were matched and compared for nonprocedural bleeding and stroke or systemic thromboembolism over 6 months following implantation. Each patient on APT was matched with 2 patients on OAC, with propensity scores derived from age, sex, congestive heart failure, hypertension, diabetes, prior transient ischemic attack or stroke, peripheral vascular disease, left ventricular ejection fraction, renal impairment, and different atrial fibrillation subtypes. RESULTS: The cohort on OAC (n = 1,018; 95% receiving warfarin and 5% receiving nonwarfarin OAC) was prescribed 45-day OAC post-implantation (92% also received single APT), followed by 6-month single or dual APT. The cohort on APT (n = 509; 91% receiving dual APT and 9% receiving single APT) received APT for variable durations. Six-month freedom from nonprocedural major bleeding was similar (OAC, 95.7%; APT, 95.5%; p = 0.775) despite more early bleeds with OAC. Freedom from thromboembolism beyond 7 days was similar between groups (OAC, 98.8%; APT, 99.4%; p = 0.089). However, device-related thrombosis was more frequent with APT (OAC, 1.4%; APT, 3.1%; p = 0.018). CONCLUSIONS: After left atrial appendage closure with the WATCHMAN, although device-related thrombosis was more common with APT, both APT and OAC strategies resulted in similar safety and efficacy endpoints.

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.

Short-term safety and efficacy of left atrial appendage closure with the WATCHMAN device in patients with small left atrial appendage ostia.

INTRODUCTION: Left atrial appendage (LAA) closure with the WATCHMAN device, according to FDA labelling, is recommended in patients with a maximal LAA ostial width between 17 and 31 mm. The safety and efficacy of LAA closure in patients with a maximal LAA ostial width < 17 mm has not been evaluated. The goal of this study was to determine the acute and short-term safety and efficacy of LAA closure with the WATCHMAN device in patients with a maximal LAA ostial width < 17 mm. METHODS AND RESULTS: Thirty-two consecutive patients with a maximal LAA ostial width < 17 mm as determined by a screening transesophageal echocardiogram (TEE) underwent LAA closure with the WATCHMAN device between March 2015 and November 2016 at five medical centers, and were included in this study. Mean age, body mass index (BMI), and CHA2 DS2 -VASC score were 70.8 ± 8.6 years, 29.3 ± 6.5 kg/m2 , and 3.9 ±1.2, respectively. At the screening TEE, mean maximal LAA ostial width and depth were 15.6 ± 0.6 mm (range 14-16) and 23.2 ± 4.5 mm (range 13-31), respectively. Successful LAA closure with the WATCHMAN device was achieved in 31 of 32 patients (97%), with no major complications. TEE performed 45 days after LAA closure demonstrated no peridevice leak > 5 mm and no device related thrombi. Warfarin was discontinued in all 31 patients 45 days after LAA closure. CONCLUSIONS: LAA closure with the WATCHMAN device can be successfully and safely achieved in patients with a maximal LAA ostial width < 17 mm.