Twice-daily rivaroxaban after percutaneous left atrial appendage closure for atrial fibrillation.

Background and aim: Rivaroxaban is an emerging oral anticoagulant for postoperative anticoagulation after percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC). Because a once-daily dosing regimen of rivaroxaban causes fluctuations in the drug plasma concentration, we studied the feasibility and safety of twice-daily rivaroxaban as a postoperative anticoagulation regimen for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing LAAC. Methods: This study involved patients with AF who underwent LAAC and took rivaroxaban postoperatively. A total of 326 patients who received a standard total dose (15 or 20 mg) of rivaroxaban based on their creatinine clearance rate were divided into the twice-daily (BID) rivaroxaban group (n = 208) and once-daily (QD) rivaroxaban group (n = 118) according to their anticoagulation strategy. Transesophageal echocardiography was recommended at 3-6 months postoperatively to check for device-related thrombosis (DRT). Clinical outcomes were evaluated during postoperative anticoagulation. Results: The median CHA2DS2-VASc score (4 [3, 5] vs. 4 [3, 5], p = 0.28) and HAS-BLED score (2 [2, 3] vs. 2 [2, 3], p = 0.48) were not significantly different between the groups. During the anticoagulation period (4.1 ± 0.7 vs. 4.1 ± 0.9 months, p = 0.58), 148 (71.2%) patients in the BID group and 75 (63.6%) in the QD group underwent follow-up transesophageal echocardiography. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of DRT (1.4% vs. 2.7%, p = 0.60), minor bleeding (8.2% vs. 11.0%, p = 0.39), thromboembolic events (1.0% vs. 0.8%, p = 1.00), major bleeding (0.5% vs. 0.8%, p = 1.00), or death. Conclusion: A short course of twice-daily rivaroxaban following LAAC is a feasible alternative regimen with a low rate of major bleeding events, DRT, and thromboembolic events for patients with AF.

Comparing safety and efficacy: MemoLefort versus watchman for left atrial appendage closure.

BACKGROUND: The MemoLefort is a new plug occluder for left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). This study compares the safety and efficacy of MemoLefort and the well-established Watchman occluder for LAAC. METHODS: Between January 2021 and September 2022, a cohort of 189 consecutive patients who underwent LAAC with MemoLefort or Watchman at The Second Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University were included. Patients with MemoLefort or Watchman devices were compared in terms of the primary safety endpoints encompassing major periprocedural complications and major bleeding events at follow-up, the primary efficacy endpoint of all-cause stroke, systemic embolism and cardiovascular/unexplained death, and the combined hazard endpoint, a composite of all the above-mentioned hazards. RESULTS: Of the MemoLefort group (n = 83) and Watchman group (n = 106), the mean age, CHA2DS2-VASc score, and HAS-BLED score were 67.6 ± 9.2 vs. 69.0 ± 10.6 years, 3.9 ± 1.9 vs. 3.8 ± 1.9, and 1.6 ± 1.0 vs. 1.7 ± 1.2, respectively. After a median follow-up duration of 198 (99-329) vs. 334 (171-497) days, the primary endpoints of efficacy [2/49, 4.1% (MemoLefort) vs. 2/97, 2.1% (Watchman); hazard ratio (HR), 1.50; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.20-11.08; P = 0.68] and safety (1/49, 2.0% vs. 5/97, 5.2%; HR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.05-1.31; P = 0.19), as well as the combined hazard endpoint (3/49, 61% vs. 6/97, 6.2%; HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.18-2.58; P = 0.59) were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: In the short term, LAAC with MemoLefort provided similar efficacy, safety, and net clinical benefit in comparison to Watchman devices.

Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure using the LAmbre device in patients with atrial fibrillation and left atrial appendage thrombus.

Background: Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) is considered a valid alternative for the prevention of thromboembolic stroke in patients with persistent left atrial appendage thrombus (LAAT) despite adequate anticoagulation. However, the data on LAAC using the LAmbre device for patients with LAAT is limited. This study was performed to explore efficacy and safety as well as to share the experience of the modified LAAC procedure with the LAmbre device. Materials and methods: A total of 7 patients with persistent LAAT despite adequate anticoagulation underwent modified LAAC with the LAmbre device between November 2019 and April 2022. Transesophageal echocardiography was performed 3 months postoperatively to detect device-related thrombosis and peridevice leak. The patients' clinical events were evaluated during the perioperative and follow-up periods. Results: The median age, CHA2DS2-VASc score, and HAS-BLED score of all patients were 71 [53-73], 3 [2-4], and 2 [2-3], respectively. In the procedure, a cerebral protection system was used in two patients. LAAC with the LAmbre device was successfully performed in all patients without perioperative events. During the median follow-up of 383 [325-865] days, postoperative transesophageal echocardiography was performed in six (85.7%) patients. Device-related thrombosis was detected in one (16.7%) patient, and no significant peridevice leak was observed. No thromboembolic event or bleeding event occurred in any patients. Conclusion: LAAC with the LAmbre device is effective and safe when performed by experienced operators in highly selected patients with LAAT after adequate anticoagulation.

Combined atrial fibrillation ablation and left atrial appendage closure: Watchman vs. LAmbre devices.

Background: Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) combined with radiofrequency catheter ablation is an emerging one-stop hybrid procedure for non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF). This study was performed to compare the efficacy and safety of the Watchman device vs. the LAmbre device for this combined procedure. Methods: Two hundred and thirty two patients with AF who underwent the combined procedure were enrolled and divided into two subgroups depending on the device choice: the Watchman-combined group (n = 118) and the LAmbre-combined group (n = 114). The periprocedural and follow-up adverse events in both groups were documented. Results: The mean CHA2DS2-VASc score and HAS-BLED score in the Watchman-combined group and LAmbre-combined group were 3.7 ± 1.5 vs. 3.8 ± 1.5 and 2.5 ± 1.1 vs. 2.3 ± 1.1, respectively (all P > 0.05). Successful LAAC was achieved in all patients. The rate of major periprocedural complications and AF recurrence at 6 months post-procedure were similar between the Watchman-combined group and LAmbre-combined group (0.8 vs. 0.9%, P = 1.00; 22.0 vs. 15.8%, P = 0.23). During 2.6 ±0 .7 vs.1.6 ± 1.6 years follow-up, the rate of major clinical adverse events, including stroke and major bleeding, were comparable between the Watchman-combined group and the LAmbre-combined group (2.6 vs. 1.1% per 100 patient-years, P = 0.33). The intraprocedural peri-device leakage (PDL) rate was similar between the Watchman-combined group and the LAmbre-combined group (5.1 vs. 6.1%, P = 0.73), but the PDL rate was significantly higher at 3-6 months transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) follow-up than the intraprocedural PDL rate in both groups (21.6 vs. 5.1%; 36.6 vs. 6.1%, respectively), with a more obvious increase in minimal PDL rate in the LAmbre-combined group than the Watchman-combined group (36.6 vs. 21.6%, P < 0.05). Conclusion: The Watchman and LAmbre devices were comparable in efficacy and safety for the combined procedure. The minimal PDL rate at short-term TEE follow-up was higher in the LAmbre-combined group than the Watchman-combined group.