Inter-atrial septal balloon dilation to facilitate intracardiac echocardiography guided left atrial appendage occlusion.

INTRODUCTION: Percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) is traditionally performed under general anesthesia with trans-esophageal echocardiography guidance. Intracardiac echo (ICE)-guided LAAO closure is increasing in clinical use. The ICE catheter is crossed into LA via interatrial septum (IAS) after the septum is dilated with LAAO delivery sheath. This step can be time-consuming and requires significant ICE catheter manipulation, which increases the risk of cardiac perforation. Pre-emptive septal balloon dilation can potentially help with ICE advancement in the LA. We sought to evaluate the effect of pre-dilation of the IAS with an 8 mm balloon on the ease of crossing the ICE catheter, fluoroscopy time for crossing, and overall procedure time. METHODS: The Piedmont LAAO registry was used to identify consecutive patients who underwent LAAO. The initial 25 patients in whom balloon dilation of the IAS was performed served as the experimental cohort, and the 25 consecutive patients before that in whom balloon dilation was not performed served as controls. In the experimental group, after a trans-septal puncture, the sheath was retracted to the right atrium with a guidewire still in the LA. An 8 × 40 mm Evercoss™ over the wire balloon was inflated across the IAS. The ICE catheter was then crossed into the LA using the fluoroscopic landmark of the guide wire and the ICE imaging. The sheath was then advanced along the ICE catheter via the transseptal puncture (TSP) and the procedure continued. Follow-up compputed tomography imaging was obtained at 4-8 weeks. RESULTS: Each group consisted of 25 patients. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics. All procedures were performed successfully under conscious sedation and ICE guidance. There was a significant reduction in the overall procedure time, fluoroscopy time, and time for transseptal puncture to ICE in LA. There was no difference in the size of the acute residual interatrial shunt, as measured via ICE, or the size and presence of iatrogenic ASD at follow-up. CONCLUSION: Balloon dilation of TSP is safe and is associated with increased efficiency in ICE-guided LAAO procedures.

Amulet device implantation following incomplete left atrial appendage closure with Watchman legacy device.

Peri-device leak after left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) is often treated with endovascular coils, plugs, or second occluders. This is the first study reporting the Amulet device used for peri-device leak. An 80-year-old male with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation and recurrent falls with head trauma who underwent LAAC with a 24 mm Watchman 2.5 device 3 years ago at another institution was referred to our clinic for management of the peri-device leak. Transesophageal echocardiogram showed persistent residual peri-device leak with 5 mm width along the Coumadin ridge aspect of the device. Computed tomography (CT) also showed the peri-device leak with width of 6 mm and complete opacification of left atrial appendage (LAA). Importantly, CT demonstrated that the Watchman 2.5 device was deployed at distal LAA, leaving the proximal part of LAA with length of 10 mm from ostium. Under general anesthesia, a 22 mm Amulet device was deployed successfully with complete sealing of LAA. Procedure planning is the key to minimize the risk of peri-device leak or device-related thrombosis. Careful assessment of LAA anatomy using multimodality images for peri-device leak after LAAC helped optimal treatment strategy including second LAAC with different type of devices.

A preliminary study of minimal left atrial appendage occlusion using Watchman under the guidance of fluoroscopy.

BACKGROUND: Left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) has been considered an alternative treatment to prevent embolic stroke in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). However, it carries a risk of general anesthesia or esophageal injury if guided by transesophageal echocardiography (TEE). AIMS: We aimed to investigate the feasibility and safety of minimal LAAO (MLAAO) using Watchman under fluoroscopy guidance alone in patients with NVAF. METHODS: A total of 249 consecutive patients with NVAF who underwent LAAO using the WATCHMAN device were divided into two groups: the Standard LAAO (SLAAO) group and the MLAAO group. Procedural characteristics and follow-up results were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in the rate of successful device implantation (p > 0.05). Fluoroscopy time, radiation exposure dose, and contrast medium usage in the MLAAO group were higher than those in the SLAAO group (p < 0.001). The procedure time and hospitalization duration were significantly lower in the MLAAO group than those in the SLAAO group (p < 0.001). The occluder compression ratio, measured with fluoroscopy, was lower than that measured with TEE (17.63 ± 3.75% vs. 21.69 ± 4.26%, p < 0.001). Significant differences were observed between the SLAAO group and the MLAAO group (p < 0.05) in terms of oropharyngeal/esophageal injury, hypotension, and dysphagia. At 3 months after LAAO, the MLAAO group had a higher incidence of residual flow within 1-5 mm compared to the SLAAO group, although the difference was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: MLAAO guided by fluoroscopy, instead of TEE, without general anesthesia simplifies the operational process and may be considered safe, effective, and feasible, especially for individuals who are unable to tolerate or unwilling to undergo TEE or general anesthesia.

Transition from WATCHMAN generation-2.5 device to WATCHMAN FLX device for percutaneous left atrial appendage closure: Incidence and predictors of device-related thrombosis and short- to mid-term outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF) not suitable for long-term anticoagulant therapy undergo percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) using the WATCHMAN device. The safety and efficacy of WATCHMAN-FLX (WM-FLX) compared with WATCHMAN-2.5 (WM-2.5), particularly in Asian populations, is unknown. METHODS: We evaluated the background, procedure, and clinical outcomes of 199 patients who underwent LAAC between September 2019 and December 2022 and compared WM-2.5 (72 patients) with WM-FLX (127 patients). RESULTS: The mean age was 76 years, with 128 men, and 100 had nonparoxysmal AF (non-PAF). The mean CHA2DS2-VASc, and HAS-BLED were 5.1, and 3.2 points, respectively. WM-FLX group demonstrated a shorter procedure time than WM-2.5 group (50 vs. 42 min, p = 0.001). The WM-FLX group demonstrated no procedural-related acute cardiac tamponade, which was significantly low (5.6% vs. 0%, p = 0.02), and a significantly higher rate of complete seal at 45-day (63% vs. 80%, p = 0.04). WM-FLX group had a significantly higher cumulative 1-year incidence of device-related thrombosis (DRT) than WM-2.5 group (3.4% vs. 7.0%, Log-rank p = 0.01). Univariate analysis identified two DRT risk factors in the WM-FLX group: non-PAF (odds ratio [OR] 7.72; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.20-48.7; p = 0.04), and 35-mm device (OR 5.13; 95% CI 1.31-19.8; p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: WM-FLX significantly improved the procedural quality and safety of LAAC. However, DRT remains an important issue even in the novel LAAC device, being a hazard for patients with high DRT risk, such as having non-PAF and using 35-mm devices.

Comparative Data of Procedural and Midterm Outcomes in Patients Who Underwent Percutaneous Left Atrial Appendage Closure Between the WATCHMAN FLX and WATCHMAN 2.5 Devices　- Insight From the OCEAN-LAAC Registry.

BACKGROUND: Limited data are available regarding clinical outcomes after percutaneous left atrial appendage closure using WATCHMAN FLX (WM-FLX) and WATCHMAN-2.5 (WM2.5) devices in Asian patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: Data of 1,464 consecutive patients (WM-FLX, n=909; WM2.5, n=555) were extracted from a Japanese multicenter registry, and clinical data were compared between the 2 groups. No in-hospital deaths, periprocedural stroke, or device embolization occurred. Procedural success was significantly higher in the WM-FLX than WM2.5 group (95.8% vs. 91.9%; P=0.002) owing to the lower incidence of periprocedural pericardial effusion (0.55% vs. 1.8%; P=0.021). No significant differences in all-cause death, postprocedural stroke, and device-related thrombus were observed between the 2 groups. However, the cumulative bleeding rate at 1 year was substantially lower in the WM-FLX group (7.8% vs. 16.4%; P<0.001). Landmark analysis of bleeding events highlighted lower bleeding rates in the WM-FLX than WM2.5 group within the first 6 months (6.4% vs. 14.8%; P<0.001), with comparable bleeding rates over the 6- to 12-month period (1.5% vs. 3.2%, respectively; P=0.065). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated higher early safety and lower 1-year bleeding rates in the WM-FLX than WM2.5 group. The lower bleeding events with WM-FLX are likely due to multiple factors other than purely difference in devices, such as postprocedural drug regimen.

Procedural simplification of left atrial appendage occlusion using the VersaCross connect system: First in-human experience.

BACKGROUND: Left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) has emerged over the last two decades as an efficient and safe alternative to oral anticoagulation for stroke prevention. However, LAAO remains challenging due to the variety of anatomies and the multiple steps required to complete the procedure. AIMS: We report the first series of in-human experience of the new all-in-one VersaCross Connect system designed to access the left atrium in conjunction with the delivery sheath for deployment of the WATCHMAN FLX device. METHODS: We prospectively included the first nine consecutive cases of LAAO using the new VersaCross Connect system for WATCHMAN FLX device implantation at the Montreal Heart Institute and Vancouver General Hospital and collected procedural duration (defined as time from femoral access to closure) and time from transseptal puncture to device delivery. RESULTS: VersaCross Connect system use for WATCHMAN FLX implantation was successful in all patients. No procedural complication was reported. Mean procedural time was 31 ± 6.3 min with a fluoroscopy time of 6.7 ± 4.9 min. The mean delay between the transseptal puncture and device implantation was 12.2 ± 1.9 min. CONCLUSIONS: We showed that the VersaCross Connect system was safe and successfully used in all first nine cases. This new system helped improve the efficiency of the procedure.

Comparison of in-hospital outcomes and complications of left atrial appendage closure with the Watchman device between males and females.

AIMS: Left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) with WATCHMAN device is being used for patients with atrial fibrillation (AFB) and, as an off-label use, atrial flutter (AFL) who can't comply with long-term anticoagulation. We aim to study the differences in outcomes between sexes in patients undergoing Watchman device implantation. METHODOLOGY: The National Inpatient Sample was queried between 2016 and 2019 using ICD-10 clinical modification codes I48x for AFB and AFL. Patients who underwent LAAO were identified using the procedural code 02L73DK. Comorbidities and complications were identified using ICD procedure and diagnosis codes. Differences in primary outcomes were analyzed using multivariable regression and propensity score matching. RESULTS: 38 105 admissions were identified, of which 16 795 (44%) were females (76 ± 7.6 years) and 21 310 (56%) were males (75 ± 8 years). Females were more likely to have cardiac (frequencies: 5.8% vs 3.75%, aOR: 1.5 [1.35-1.68], p1 day inpatient (1.79 [1.67-1.93], P < 0.01) and be discharged to a facility (1.54 [1.33-1.80], P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Females are more likely to develop cardiac, renal, bleeding, pulmonary and TEE-related complications following LAAO procedure, while concurrently showing higher mortality, length of stay and discharge to facilities.

Prognostic value of chronic kidney disease in patients undergoing left atrial appendage occlusion.

AIMS: Atrial fibrillation (AF) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) often coexist and share an increased risk of thrombo-embolism (TE). CKD concomitantly predisposes towards a pro-haemorrhagic state. Our aim was to evaluate the prognostic value of CKD in patients undergoing percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO). METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 2124 consecutive AF patients undergoing LAAO were categorized into CKD stage 1+2 (n = 1089), CKD stage 3 (n = 796), CKD stage 4 (n = 170), and CKD stage 5 (n = 69) based on the estimated glomerular filtration rate at baseline. The primary endpoint included cardiovascular (CV) mortality, TE, and major bleeding. The expected annual TE and major bleeding risks were estimated based on the CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED scores. A non-significant higher incidence of major peri-procedural adverse events (1.7 vs. 2.3 vs. 4.1 vs. 4.3) was observed with worsening CKD (P = 0.14). The mean follow-up period was 13 ± 7 months (2226 patient-years). In comparison to CKD stage 1+2 as a reference, the incidence of the primary endpoint was significantly higher in CKD stage 3 (log-rank P-value = 0.04), CKD stage 4 (log-rank P-value = 0.01), and CKD stage 5 (log-rank P-value = 0.001). Left atrial appendage occlusion led to a TE risk reduction (RR) of 72, 66, 62, and 41% in each group. The relative RR of major bleeding was 58, 44, 51, and 52%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Patients with moderate-to-severe CKD had a higher incidence of the primary composite endpoint. The relative RR in the incidence of TE and major bleeding was consistent across CKD groups.

Mechanisms, predictors, and evolution of severe peri-device leaks with two different left atrial appendage occluders.

AIMS: Incomplete left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) due to peri-device leak (PDL) is a limitation of the therapy. The Amulet IDE trial is the largest randomized head-to-head trial comparing the Amulet and Watchman 2.5 LAAO devices with fundamentally different designs. The predictors and mechanistic factors impacting differences in PDLs within the Amulet IDE trial are assessed in the current analysis. METHODS AND RESULTS: An independent core lab analysed all images for the presence or absence of severe PDL (>5 mm). The incidence, mechanistic factors, predictors using propensity score-matched controls, and evolution of severe PDLs through 18 months were assessed. Of the 1878 patients randomized in the trial, the Amulet occluder had significantly fewer severe PDLs than the Watchman device at 45 days (1.1 vs. 3.2%, P < 0.001) and 12 months (0.1 vs. 1.1%, P < 0.001). Off-axis deployment or missed lobes were leading mechanistic PDL factors in each device group. Larger left atrial appendage (LAA) dimensions including orifice diameter, landing zone diameter, and depth predicted severe PDL with the Watchman device, with no significant anatomical limitations noted with the Amulet occluder. Procedural and device implant predictors were found with the Amulet occluder attributed to the learning curve with the device. A majority of Watchman device severe PDLs did not resolve over time through 18 months. CONCLUSION: The dual-occlusive Amplatzer Amulet LAA occluder provided improved LAA closure compared with the Watchman 2.5 device. Predictors and temporal observations of severe PDLs were identified in the Amulet IDE trial. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://clinicaltrials.gov Unique identifier NCT02879448.

Three-dimensional intracardiac echocardiography for left atrial appendage sizing and percutaneous occlusion guidance.

AIMS: Left atrial appendage (LAA) imaging is critical during percutaneous occlusion procedures. 3D-intracardiac echocardiography (ICE) features direct visualization of LAA from multiple cross-sectional planes at a time. We aimed at reporting procedural success of 3D-ICE-guided LAA occlusion and the correlation between pre-procedural transoesophageal echocardiography (TEE) and intraprocedural 3D-ICE for LAA sizing. METHODS AND RESULTS: Among 274 patients undergoing left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) with a Watchman FLX, periprocedural ICE guidance was achieved via a commercially available 2D-ICE catheter (220 patients) or a novel (NUVISION™) 3D-ICE one (54 patients). Primary endpoint was a composite of procedural success and LAA sealing at follow-up TEE. Secondary endpoint was a composite of periprocedural device recapture/resizing plus presence of leaks ≥ 3 mm at follow-up TEE. 3D-ICE measurements of maximum landing zone correlated highly with pre-procedural TEE reference values [Pearson's: 0.94; P < 0.001; bias: -0.06 (-2.39, 2.27)]. The agreement between 3D-ICE-based device selection and final device size was 96.3% vs. 79.1% with 2D-ICE (P = 0.005). The incidence of the primary endpoint was 98.1% with 3D-ICE and 97.3% with 2D-ICE (P = 0.99). 2D-ICE patients had a trend towards a higher incidence of periprocedural device recapture/redeployment (31.5% vs. 44.5%; P = 0.09). The secondary endpoint occurred in 31.5% of 3D-ICE patients vs. 45.9% of 2D-ICE ones (P = 0.065). CONCLUSION: Intracardiac echocardiography-guided LAAO showed a very high success, with no major adverse events. A very high level of agreement for LAA sizing was found between pre-procedural TEE and periprocedural 3D-ICE. 3D-ICE performed significantly better than 2D-ICE for FLX size selection and may provide better guidance during device deployment.

Real-world clinical outcomes with a next-generation left atrial appendage closure device: the FLXibility Post-Approval Study.

AIMS: The FLXibility Post-Approval Study collected data on unselected patients implanted with a WATCHMAN FLX in a commercial clinical setting. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients were implanted with a WATCHMAN FLX per local standard of care, with a subsequent first follow-up visit from 45 to 120 days post-implant and a final follow-up at 1-year post-procedure. A Clinical Event Committee adjudicated all major adverse events and TEE/CT imaging results were adjudicated by a core laboratory. Among 300 patients enrolled at 17 centres in Europe, the mean age was 74.6 ± 8.0 years, mean CHA2DS2-VASc score was 4.3 ± 1.6, and 62.1% were male. The device was successfully implanted in 99.0% (297/300) of patients. The post-implant medication regimen was DAPT for 87.3% (262/300). At first follow-up, core-lab adjudicated complete seal was 88.2% (149/169), 9.5% (16/169) had leak <3 mm, 2.4 (4/169) had leak ≥3 mm to ≤5 mm, and 0% had >5 mm leak. At 1 year, 93.3% (280/300) had final follow-up; 60.5% of patients were on a single antiplatelet medication, 21.4% were on DAPT, 5.6% were on direct oral anticoagulation, and 12.1% were not taking any antiplatelet/anticoagulation medication. Adverse event rates through 1 year were: all-cause death 10.8% (32/295); CV/unexplained death 5.1% (15/295); disabling and non-disabling stroke each 1.0% (3/295, all non-fatal); pericardial effusion requiring surgery or pericardiocentesis 1.0% (3/295); and device-related thrombus 2.4% (7/295). CONCLUSION: The WATCHMAN FLX device had excellent procedural success rates, high LAA seal rates, and low rates of thromboembolic events in everyday clinical practice.

Antithrombotic Regimen After Percutaneous Left Atrial Appendage Closure　- A Real-World Study.

BACKGROUND: Antithrombotic therapy after left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) in patients at high risk of bleeding remains controversial. We present real-world clinical outcomes of LAAC.Methods and Results: Data from 74 consecutive patients who received LAAC therapy between January 2020 and June 2022 were analyzed. Patients received 1 of 3 antithrombotic therapies according to the bleeding risk category or clinical event. Regimen 1 was based on a prior study, regimen 2 comprised a lower antiplatelet drug dose without dual antiplatelet therapy, and regimen 3 was antiplatelet drug administration for as long as possible to patients with uncontrollable bleeding who were required to stop anticoagulant drugs. Overall, 73 (98.6%) procedures were successful. Of them, 16 (21.9%) patients were selected for regimen 1, 46 (63.0%) for regimen 2, and 11 (15.1%) for regimen 3. Device-related thrombosis (13% vs. 0% vs. 0%, P=0.0257) only occurred with regimen 1. There was no difference in major bleeding event rates (6% vs. 2% vs. 9%, P=0.53). CONCLUSIONS: The post-LAAC antithrombotic regimen was modified without major concerns.

Zero-Contrast Left Atrial Appendage Closure in Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease.

BACKGROUND: Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) usually requires contrast medium during the procedure. However, patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are at high risk of developing contrast nephropathy. This study aimed to assess the safety and feasibility of zero-contrast LAAC in patients with CKD.Methods and Results: Zero-contrast LAAC was attempted in 15 patients with CKD Stages 3b-5 who were not on hemodialysis. All procedures were performed successfully, without any periprocedural complications. At the 45-day follow-up, no device-related complications or acute kidney disease were observed. CONCLUSIONS: The strategy of zero-contrast LAAC in patients with CKD can be an acceptable option.

Left Atrial Appendage Closure with Watchman vs Amulet Devices: Similarities and Differences.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) has shown to be non-inferior to oral anticoagulation (OAC) for non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF). LAAC is now becoming a leading method for stroke prophylaxis in patients who have atrial fibrillation and are unable to tolerate OAC. There are currently two FDA-approved endocardial closure devices, namely, the Watchman FLX and Amplatzer Amulet. RECENT FINDINGS: Current data highlights that both devices offer similar efficacy and safety for LAAC. While the two devices differ in terms of intraprocedural complication rates, they offer similar short- to long-term outcomes in regard to peri-device leaks, device-related thrombosis, and mortality. With similar risk and safety profiles, both devices are indicated for patients who are unable to tolerate OAC. Newer clinical studies are directed to establish the efficacy of both devices as the primary method for stroke prevention in AF as an alternate to OAC.

A Randomized Trial of Preoperative Planning of Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion Using Cardiac Computed Tomography Angiography.

Objective. To evaluate the value of individualized planning of left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) using cardiac computed tomography angiography (CCTA) reconstruction techniques. Methods. A total of 96 patients treated for LAAO with the Watchman occluder were included in this study. All patients were randomized by random number table in a 2:1 ratio into the CCTA (+) and CCTA (-) groups according to whether CCTA was performed preoperatively. 3D cardiac reconstruction was performed preoperatively in the CCTA (+) group to plan the location of the atrial septal puncture site, left atrial appendage(LAA) landing zone, predict the size of the occluder and simulate occluder release. In the CCTA(-) group, only transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) and fluoroscopy were used to guide LAAO. Results. The number of occluders used in a single procedure (1.06 ± .24 vs 1.22 ± .42), the number of intraoperative angiography positions (1.23 ± .58 vs 2.28 ± .85) and the procedure time (45.88 ± 5.08 vs 62.44 ± 5.60) in the CCTA(+) group were lower than in the CCTA(-) group (P < .05), and the first-attempt blocking success rate was higher than that of the CCTA(-) group (85.9% vs 65.6%, P = .021). Furthermore, the Bland-Altman plots showed good agreement between the longest diameter of the CCTA-predicted landing zone and the longest diameter of the actual landing zone (95% LoA -7.49, 10.24). A strong positive correlation was observed between the predicted compression ratio and the actual compression ratio (r = .890, P < .001). In addition, a strong positive correlation was found between the CCTA-predicted longest diameter of the landing zone and the actual occluder size (r = .863, P < .001). Conclusion. Accurate planning for LAAO using preoperative CCTA can reduce intraoperative angiography positions and occluder changes, shorten the procedure time, increase the success rate of first-attempt blocking and reduce the difficulty of the procedure.

Feasibility and safety of laser balloon pulmonary vein isolation in patients with prior left atrial appendage occlusion device implantation.

INTRODUCTION: With the increasing adoption of left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) procedures and the eligibility of patients for pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) post device placement, we examined the feasibility and safety of laser balloon (LB) for PVI in patients with prior LAAO. METHODS: We retrospectively examined consecutive patients with paroxysmal or persistent, drug-resistant atrial fibrillation (AF) who underwent LB PVI, after Watchman FLX device implantation at Rush University Medical Center between January 2020 and December 2021. RESULTS: Seven patients (four persistent and three paroxysmal) with a mean age of 64 ± 11 years, predominantly male sex (86%), were included in the study. Two (29%) patients had prior cryoablation PVI with recurrence of AF. The mean CHA2 DS2 VASc is 2.6 ± 0.5 and the mean HAS-BLED score is 3.4 ± 0.8. The mean follow-up duration was 10 ± 7 months. The mean duration between Watchman FLX device implantation and LB PVI was 592 days. Acute first pass left pulmonary vein (PV) isolation was achieved in 100% of the procedures. There were no periprocedural complications such as death, pericardial tamponade or effusion, phrenic nerve injury, PV stenosis, device perforation or embolization, or worsening peri-device leak in any of the patients. None of the patients had AF recurrence after the blanking period. CONCLUSION: LB PVI was safe and effective with 100% acute isolation of left-sided veins in patients with prior LAAO device.

Safety of left atrial appendage closure in heart failure patients.

INTRODUCTION: Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) is an intervention aimed at stroke prevention in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF). There is a three-fold increased risk of stroke in patients with concomitant presence of AF and heart failure (HF). While anticoagulation is effective, only 60% receive it. We aimed at studying the safety of LAAC in HF patients using a national all-payer database. METHODS: We queried the National Inpatient Sample for the year 2016-2018 for WATCHMAN device insertion using ICD 10 procedure codes. We divided the study population into HF and non-HF groups. Outcomes were compared using appropriate statistical tests, p< .05 was considered significant. RESULTS: 34 385 LAAC procedures were identified of which 8530 (24.8%) were done in patients with HF. The mean (SD) age of the study population was 76 (7.9) years and 42% were female. There was no difference in mean age between HF and non-HF groups. Our findings indicate that there is no difference in inpatient mortality and cardiac complications between the HF and non-HF groups. However, noncardiac complications including acute kidney injury and respiratory failure were higher in the HF group. CONCLUSION: LAAC appears to be a safe procedure in patients with HF. The study is limited by a short follow up period and long-term follow-up is required before definitive conclusions can be made.

Leak closure following left atrial appendage exclusion procedures: A multicenter registry.

BACKGROUND: Though infrequent, incomplete left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) may result from residual leaks. Percutaneous closure has been described though data is limited. METHODS: We compiled a registry from four centers of patients undergoing percutaneous closure of residual leaks following LAAC via surgical means or with the Watchman device. Leak severity was classified as none (no leak), mild (1-2 mm), moderate (3-4 mm), or severe (≥5 mm). Procedural and clinical success was defined as the elimination of leak or mild residual leak at the conclusion of the procedure or follow-up, respectively. RESULTS: Of 72 (age 72.2 ± 9.2 years; 67% male) patients, 53 had undergone prior LAAC using the Watchman device and 19 patients surgical LAAC. Mean CHADS2 -VA2 Sc score was 4.0 ± 1.8. The median leak size was 5 mm, range: 2-13). A total of 13 received Amplatzer Vascular Plug-II, 18 received Amplatzer Duct Occluder-II and 40 patients received coils. One underwent closure using a 21 mm-Watchman. Procedural success was 94%. Zero surgical and nine Watchman patients (13%) had a residual leak at procedural-end (five mild, three moderate, and one severe)-only one patient had no reduction in leak size. Overall leak size reduction was 94%. Two (3%) had intraoperative pericardial effusion. There were no device embolizations, device-related thrombi, or procedural deaths. Clinical success was maintained at 94%. Two had cerebrovascular accidents-at 2 days (transient ischemic attack) and 10 months postprocedure. Two had major bleeding outside the 30-day periprocedural window. CONCLUSION: Percutaneous closure of residual leaks following left atrial appendage closure is feasible and associated with good outcomes. The procedural risk appears to be satisfactory.

Watchman FLX vs. Watchman 2.5 in a Dual-Center Left Atrial Appendage Closure Cohort: the WATCH-DUAL study.

AIMS: No studies have compared Watchman 2.5 (W2.5) with Watchman FLX (FLX) devices to date. We aimed at comparing the FLX with W2.5 devices with respect to clinical outcomes, left atrial appendage (LAA) sealing properties and device-related thrombus (DRT). METHODS AND RESULTS: All consecutive left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) procedures performed at two European centres between November 2017 and February 2021 were included. Procedure-related complications and net adverse cardiovascular events (NACE) at 6 months after LAAC were recorded. At 45-day computed tomography (CT) follow-up, intra- (IDL) and peri- (PDL) device leak, residual patent neck area (RPNA), and DRT were assessed by a Corelab. Out of 144 LAAC consecutive procedures, 71 and 73 interventions were performed using W2.5 and FLX devices, respectively. There were no differences in terms of procedure-related complications (4.2% vs. 2.7%, P = 0.626). At 45-day CT, the FLX was associated with lower frequency of IDL [21.3% vs. 40.0%; P = 0.032; odds ratio (OR): 0.375; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.160-0.876; P = 0.024], similar rate of PDL (29.5% vs. 42.0%; P = 0.170), and smaller RPNA [6 (0-36) vs. 40 (6-115) mm2; P = 0.001; OR: 0.240; 95% CI: 0.100-0.577; P = 0.001] compared with the W2.5 group. At 45 days, rate of DRT as detected by CT and/or transoesophageal echocardiography (TOE), was higher with W2.5 (6.0% vs. 0%, P = 0.045). At 6-month follow-up, NACE did not differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of consecutive LAACs, FLX as compared to W2.5, was associated with similar procedure-related complications and 6-month NACE, but with improved LAA neck coverage, and lower IDL and DRT.

Comparison between Amplatzer and Watchman Left Atrial Appendage Closure Devices for Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The Amplatzer and Watchman left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) devices are the two most frequently used devices for LAAC devices worldwide. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of the two devices. METHODS: We searched the PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for studies up to February 6, 2022 that compared the safety and efficacy of the Amplatzer and Watchman devices. RESULTS: Fifteen studies including 2,150 patients in randomized controlled trials and 2,526 patients in observational studies were included in the meta-analysis. Amplatzer device was associated with higher rates of major procedure-related complications (odds ratio [OR]: 1.99, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.45-2.74, p < 0.0001) and device embolization (OR: 1.99, 95% CI: 1.09-3.64, p = 0.03). However, Amplatzer device had lower rates of total peridevice leak (PDL) (OR: 0.48, 95% CI: 0.27-0.83, p = 0.009), significant PDL (OR: 0.27, 95% CI: 0.12-0.57, p = 0.0007) and device-related thrombus (DRT) (OR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.48-0.95, p = 0.02). No statistical differences were observed between the two devices in other safety and efficacy endpoints, such as pericardial effusion, cardiac tamponade, air embolism, vascular complications, ischemic stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA), hemorrhagic stroke, all-cause death, cardiovascular death, and bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: Amplatzer LAAC device was associated with higher rates of major procedure-related complications, especially in device embolization. Watchman LAAC device was associated with higher rates of PDL and DRT. There were no significant differences between two devices in ischemic stroke/TIA, hemorrhagic stroke, all-cause death, cardiovascular death, and bleeding.