Left atrial appendage closure for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: current status and perspectives.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with an increased risk of stroke and systemic embolism, and the left atrial appendage (LAA) has been identified as a principal source of thromboembolism in these patients. While oral anticoagulation is the current standard of care, LAA closure (LAAC) emerges as an alternative or complementary treatment approach to reduce the risk of stroke or systemic embolism in patients with AF. Moderate-sized randomized clinical studies have provided data for the efficacy and safety of catheter-based LAAC, largely compared with vitamin K antagonists. LAA device iterations, advances in pre- and peri-procedural imaging, and implantation techniques continue to increase the efficacy and safety of LAAC. More data about efficacy and safety of LAAC have been collected, and several randomized clinical trials are currently underway to compare LAAC with best medical care (including non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants) in different clinical settings. Surgical LAAC in patients with AF undergoing cardiac surgery reduced the risk of stroke on background of anticoagulation therapy in the LAAOS III study. In this review, we describe the rapidly evolving field of LAAC and discuss recent clinical data, ongoing studies, open questions, and current limitations of LAAC.

Atrial Fibrillation Detection and Load: Knowledge Gaps Related to Stroke Prevention.

Atrial fibrillation is a major cause of ischemic stroke. Technological advances now support prolonged cardiac rhythm monitoring using either surface electrodes or insertable cardiac monitors. Four major randomized controlled trials show that prolonged cardiac monitoring detects subclinical paroxysmal atrial fibrillation in 9% to 16% of patients with ischemic stroke, including in patients with potential alternative causes such as large artery disease or small vessel occlusion; however, the optimal monitoring strategy, including the target patient population and the monitoring device (whether to use an event monitor, insertable cardiac monitor, or stepped approach) has not been well defined. Furthermore, the clinical significance of very short duration paroxysmal atrial fibrillation remains controversial. The relevance of the duration of monitoring, burden of device-detected atrial fibrillation, and its proximity to the acute ischemic stroke will require more research to define the most effective methods for stroke prevention in this patient population.

Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation: Our Current Failures and Required Research.

Nonvalvular atrial fibrillation is a common rhythm disorder of middle-aged to older adults that can cause ischemic strokes and systemic embolism. Lifelong use of oral anticoagulants reduces the risk of these ischemic events but increases the risk of major and clinically relevant hemorrhages. These medications also require strict compliance for efficacy, and they have nontrivial failure rates in higher-risk patients. Left atrial appendage closure is a nonpharmacological method to prevent ischemic strokes in atrial fibrillation without the need for lifelong anticoagulant use, but this procedure has the potential for complications and residual embolic events. This workshop of the Roundtable of Academia and Industry for Stroke Prevention discussed future research needed to further decrease the ischemic and hemorrhagic risks among patients with atrial fibrillation. A direct thrombin inhibitor, factor Xa inhibitors, and left atrial appendage closure are FDA-approved approaches whereas factor XIa inhibitors are currently being studied in phase 3 randomized controlled trials for stroke prevention. The benefits, risks, and shortcomings of these treatments and future research required in different high-risk patient populations are reviewed in this consensus statement.

Medicare-mandated shared decision making for left atrial appendage closure in clinical practice.

INTRODUCTION: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) required a shared decision-making (SDM) interaction, with an "independent" physician, before left atrial appendage closure (LAAC). The purpose of this study is to better understand how this requirement is implemented in clinical practice. METHODS: We surveyed LAAC-performing centers. The characteristics of respondent and nonrespondent hospitals were compared using the CMS Provider of Services File for 2017. RESULTS: We received 86 responses out of 269 surveys mailed (32%). Respondent and nonrespondent hospital affiliations were similar: mean hospital size 525 beds, 15% for-profit, and 34% teaching hospitals. Thirty-four respondents (39.5%) stated that the implanting physician conducts some or all of the SDM interactions. The percentage of patients who decide not to undergo LAAC after the SDM interaction was estimated at 8.1%. Out of 72 responses to an open-ended question about the benefit of the SDM interaction, 44 (61%) described the requirement in negative terms, of which most felt the requirement was burdensome for patients and providers. Only 28 respondents (39%) described the requirement in positive or mixed terms. CONCLUSION: In violation of the letter of the CMS policy for LAAC, implanting physicians perform the SDM interaction at nearly 40% of responding hospitals. Most respondents felt the SDM requirement was burdensome for patients. More detailed guidance from CMS on how to comply with the policy may result in better alignment between the intent of the policy and how it is implemented.

Insufficient Ablation is Associated with Atrial Fibrillation Recurrence after Combining Ablation and Left Atrial Appendage Closure.

Background: The combination of left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) and catheter ablation (CA) in a single procedure is a safe and effective form of treatment for atrial fibrillation (AF). However, several findings have argued that LAAC might increase the risk of AF recurring. Therefore, this study investigated the impact of insufficient ablation on AF recurrence after the hybrid procedures of CA and LAAC. Methods: We reviewed 107 consecutive patients with AF who received the CA and LAAC hybrid procedures (combined group). In the case-control study, another 107 patients who underwent only CA (ablation group) were successfully matched using propensity score matching. After correcting the insufficient ablation, 107 consecutive patients were enrolled prospectively. During the follow-up period, postprocedural 24-hour monitor recordings and a portable electrocardiogram (ECG) monitoring device were used to detect AF recurrence. Transesophageal echocardiography was used to evaluate LAAC. Results: The combined group showed an increase in the risk of AF recurrence after 539.2 ± 304.4 days of follow-up (29.9% vs. 15.9%, p < 0.05). Interestingly, the duration of the procedure was not significantly prolonged when LAAC was added after CA in the combined group, while there was a higher number of ablating attempts, duration of ablation, and additional ablation in the ablation group for both radiofrequency and cryoballoon ablation. After correcting for the insufficient ablation, the corrected group showed a significant decrease in AF recurrence after 420.4 ± 204.8 days of follow-up. Conclusions: Insufficient ablation is common when combining CA and LAAC and may lead to the recurrence of atrial fibrillation. It should be corrected intentionally by sufficient ablation of the pulmonary vein antrum and additional ablation. Clinical Trial Registration: The prospective study is a sub-study of our CAGEDAF study that has already been registered (ChiCTR2000039746).

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.

Long-term outcomes after echocardiography versus fluoroscopy-guided left atrial appendage closure: Is there still a role for a simplified approach?

BACKGROUND: Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) represents an alternative to oral anticoagulation for stroke prevention in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF). While transoesophageal echocardiography is the current standard for guiding LAAC procedures, several centers have employed fluoroscopic guidance alone. However, data on long-term outcomes are lacking. METHODS: A total of 536 patients with AF undergoing LAAC and with available data on long-term follow-up were included in the retrospective, single-center analysis. Outcomes of patients undergoing fluoroscopy-guided LAAC were compared with those undergoing echocardiography guided LAAC. Time-dependent analysis was performed with the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: A total of 234 (44%) and 302 (56%) patients were treated with echocardiography and fluoroscopy guidance, respectively. Baseline characteristics did not differ between the two groups. Procedural success rates were high in both groups (97% of fluoroscopy vs. 98% of echocardiography guided procedures; p = 0.92) and rates of relevant peri-device leaks (p = 0.50) and device-related thrombus formation (p = 0.22) did not differ between groups. Median clinical follow-up time was 48 (IQR 19-73) months. Rates of all-cause mortality (p = 0.15, HR 0.83, CI 0.64-1.07) and stroke (p = 0.076, HR 2.23, CI 0.90-5.54) were comparable among groups. CONCLUSION: LAAC with fluoroscopy guidance alone is equally safe and leads to similar clinical outcome compared to LAAC with additional echocardiography guidance.

Incidence, progression, and predictors of left atrial appendage sealing after Watchman FLX device implantation with computed tomographic assessment.

BACKGROUND: Limited data exists regarding incidence, progression, and predictors of left atrial appendage (LAA) sealing after transcatheter LAA closure. We aimed to evaluate the incidence, progression, and predictive factors associated with LAA sealing after LAA closure. METHODS: This study includes patients who underwent successful LAA closure with Watchman FLX device and had both pre- and postprocedural computed tomography (CT). Postprocedural CT was performed 45 days after LAA closure and used to evaluate residual LAA patency. Patient who had residual LAA patency at 45 days underwent 1-year follow-up CT. RESULTS: A total of 105 patients (mean age: 75.2 ± 9.6 years; 53.3% female) who underwent successful LAA closure with Watchman FLX device and had pre- and postprocedural CT at 45 days were included. Residual patency was observed in 35 (33.3%) patients: 21 (20.0%) patients showed complete contrast opacification in LAA (complete LAA patency) while 14 (13.3%) patients showed contrast opacification only in the distal LAA (distal LAA patency). Among patients with residual LAA patency at 45 days, the rate of LAA sealing at 1 year was significantly higher in the distal LAA patency group than in the complete LAA patency group (75.0% vs. 16.7%; p = 0.019). Increased depth oversizing was associated with both distal LAA patency and complete LAA patency. CONCLUSION: Postprocedural CT at 45 days detected patent LAA in one-third of patients after LAA closure. LAA sealing was more frequently observed at 1 year among the distal LAA patency group than the complete LAA patency group.

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.

Midterm follow-up after computed tomography angiography planned left atrial appendage closure.

BACKGROUND: While studies have shown the advantages of computed tomography angiography (CTA) over transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) in left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) preprocedural planning for WATCHMAN™ legacy and FLX devices, there has been no reported long-term data for this approach. OBJECTIVES: We sought to evaluate long-term outcomes using CTA-based preprocedural planning for LAAC using the WATCHMAN™ device. METHODS: A prospective analysis of 231 consecutive patients who underwent LAAC in a single, large academic hospital in the United States was conducted over a 5-year period. CTA-guided preprocedural planning was performed in all. Procedural success, adverse events, length of procedure, number of devices used, and length of stay were evaluated. Rates of death, cerebral embolism, systemic embolism, and major and minor bleeding were recorded. Adjusted predicted stroke and major bleeding rates were derived from CHA2DS2-Vasc and HAS-BLED scores, respectively. RESULTS: From January 26, 2017, to November 23, 2021, 231 patients underwent LAAC with CTA preprocedural planning by two operating physicians. The mean age of patients was 76.5 ± 8.4. 59.7% of patients were male. Mean CHA2DS2VASc and HAS-BLED scores were 4.5 ± 1.4 and 3.9 ± 0.9, respectively. All procedures were performed with intracardiac echo (100%). The procedural success rate was 99.1%. The CTA sizing strategy accurately predicted the implant size in 93.5% of patients. Mean number of devices used was 1.10 ± 0.3. Peri-procedural complication rate was 2.2%. 6 patients were lost to follow-up. Mean follow-up was 608.94 days with a total of 377.04 patient years. Median follow-up period of 368 days (interquartile range: 209-1067 days). There were 51 deaths from all causes (13.52 per 100 patient-years), 10 cases of cerebral embolism (2.65 per 100 patient-years), 2 cases of systemic embolism (0.53 per 100 patient-years), 17 cases of major bleeding (4.50 per 100 patient-years), and 31 cases of minor bleeding (8.2 per 100 patient-years). All-cause mortality at 1, 2, and 3 years was 12.7%, 20.9%, and 29.2%, respectively. CV event rates at 1, 2, and 3 years were 2.1%, 6.6%, and 10.5%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: CTA-based preprocedural planning is accurate in predicting device size for LAAC and associated with excellent clinical outcomes at 5 years.

Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure with SeaLA device in non-valvular atrial fibrillation.

OBJECTIVES: The clinical efficacy and safety of a novel left atrial appendage (LAA) occluder of the SeaLA closure system in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) were reported. BACKGROUND: Patients with NVAF are at a higher risk of stroke compared to healthy individuals. Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) has emerged as a prominent strategy for reducing the risk of thrombosis in individuals with NVAF. METHODS: A prospective, multicenter study was conducted in NVAF patients with a high risk of stroke. RESULTS: The LAAC was successfully performed in 163 patients. The mean age was 66.93 ± 7.92 years, with a mean preoperative CHA2DS2-VASc score of 4.17 ± 1.48. One patient with residual flow >3 mm was observed at the 6-month follow-up, confirmed by TEE. During the follow-up, 2 severe pericardiac effusions were noted, and 2 ischemic strokes were observed. Four device-related thromboses were resolved after anticoagulation treatment. There was no device embolism. CONCLUSIONS: The LAAC with the SeaLA device demonstrates encouraging feasibility, safety, and efficacy outcomes.

Treatment strategies of the thromboembolic risk in kidney failure patients with atrial fibrillation.

The incidence and prevalence of atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients affected by kidney failure, i.e. glomerular filtration rate <15 ml/min/1.73 m2, is high and probably underestimated. Numerous uncertainties remain regarding how to prevent thromboembolic events in this population because both cardiology and nephrology guidelines do not provide clear recommendations. The efficacy and safety of oral anticoagulant therapy (OAC) in preventing thromboembolism in patients with kidney failure and AF has not been demonstrated for either vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) or direct anticoagulants (DOACs). Moreover, it remains unclear which is more effective and safer, because estimated creatinine clearance <25-30 ml/min was an exclusion criterion in the randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Three RCTs comparing DOACs and VKAs in kidney failure failed to reach the primary endpoint, as they were underpowered. The left atrial appendage is the main source of thromboembolism in the presence of AF. Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) has recently been proposed as an alternative to OAC. RCTs comparing the efficacy and safety of LAAC versus OAC in kidney failure were terminated prematurely due to recruitment failure. A recent prospective study showed a reduction in thromboembolic events in haemodialysis patients with AF and undergoing LAAC compared with patients taking or not taking OAC. We review current treatment standards and discuss recent developments in managing the thromboembolic risk in kidney failure patients with AF. The importance of shared decision-making with the multidisciplinary team and the patient to consider individual risks and benefits of each treatment option is underlined.

Peri-device leakage and delayed endothelialization of the Watchman device: a computed tomography study.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to explore the endothelialization process and assess the potential association between endothelialization and peri-device leak (PDL) following Watchman implantation via a quantitative method. METHODS: This is a single-center retrospective study of consecutive patients undergoing LAAO between December 2015 and November 2021. Device endothelialization, compared between PDL and non-PDL group, were quantitatively analyzed based on hypoattenuated thickening in cardiac computed tomography angiography (CCTA). Advancement in endothelialization over time were explored using the Cochran-Armitage test and generalized estimating equation approach. Potential risk factors of delayed endothelialization were analyzed using the Cox proportional-hazards model. RESULTS: A total of 172 patients (mean age, 68 years ± 10 [standard deviation], 114 men) were finally included. The average endothelialization ratio of the study population was 89.8 ± 7.2 percent. In the follow-up period of postprocedural 3 months to more than 12 months, an incremental trend of endothelialization over time was observed with the ratio of 85.8 ± 8.0, 89.6 ± 7.6, 92.2 ± 4.5, 94.3 ± 2.9 percent, respectively (p < 0.0001). Notably, patients without PDL exhibited a swifter advancement in endothelialization compared to those with PDL, irrespective of device size. The multivariable Cox regression model showed that PDL (HR = 2.113, 95%CI: 1.300-3.435, p = 0.003), DSP (HR = 1.717, 95%CI: 1.113-2.647, p = 0.014) were independent risk factors of delayed endothelialization. CONCLUSION: CCTA holds promise as an effective means of quantitatively assessing device endothelialization. Endothelialization advanced gradually over time, with PDL potentially impeding device endothelialization. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: A comprehensive understanding of the correlation between endothelialization ratio, time, and residual shunt can establish a more dependable foundation for determining the appropriate anticoagulation treatment following left atrial appendage closure. KEY POINTS: Current recommendations for postleft atrial appendage occlusion anti-platelet and anticoagulation therapy are based on animal studies. Cardiac computed tomography angiography (CCTA) combined with the UNet neural network model enables the quantitative assessment of device endothelialization. This technique will allow for additional studies to better understand device endothelialization to optimize treatments in this population.

Practical guide on left atrial appendage closure for the non-implanting physician: an international consensus paper.

A significant proportion of patients who suffer from atrial fibrillation (AF) and are in need of thromboembolic protection are not treated with oral anticoagulation or discontinue this treatment shortly after its initiation. This undertreatment has not improved sufficiently despite the availability of direct oral anticoagulants which are associated with less major bleeding than vitamin K antagonists. Multiple reasons account for this, including bleeding events or ischaemic strokes whilst on anticoagulation, a serious risk of bleeding events, poor treatment compliance despite best educational attempts, or aversion to drug therapy. An alternative interventional therapy, which is not associated with long-term bleeding and is as effective as vitamin K anticoagulation, was introduced over 20 years ago. Because of significant improvements in procedural safety over the years, left atrial appendage closure, predominantly achieved using a catheter-based, device implantation approach, is increasingly favoured for the prevention of thromboembolic events in patients who cannot achieve effective anticoagulation. This management strategy is well known to the interventional cardiologist/electrophysiologist but is not more widely appreciated within cardiology or internal medicine. This article introduces the devices and briefly explains the implantation technique. The indications and device follow-up are more comprehensively described. Almost all physicians who care for adult patients will have many with AF. This practical guide, written within guideline/guidance boundaries, is aimed at those non-implanting physicians who may need to refer patients for consideration of this new therapy, which is becoming increasingly popular.

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.

The Association of Hematological Markers with Occurrence of Thrombotic and Bleeding Events following Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion.

INTRODUCTION: Patients undergoing left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) are at increased risk for bleeding or thromboembolic events. Concurrently, biomarkers are of growing importance in risk stratification for atrial fibrillation patients. We aimed to evaluate the association of hematological markers and clinical characteristics with the occurrence of thromboembolic and bleeding events following LAAO. METHODS: Seven implanting centers retrospectively gathered data on hematological markers (i.e., platelet count [PC], mean platelet volume [MPV], and fibrinogen) prior to LAAO. Prespecified thromboembolic and major bleeding outcomes were collected and the association with pre-procedural hematological markers and clinical characteristics was evaluated using Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: In total, 1,315 patients were included (74 ± 9 years, 36% female, CHA2DS2-VASc 4.3 ± 1.5, HAS-BLED 3.3 ± 1.1). Over a total follow-up duration of 2,682 patient years, 77 thromboembolic events and 107 major bleeding events occurred after LAAO. Baseline PC was the only biomarker showing a signal for a relation to thromboembolic events (HR 1.18, 95% CI: 1.00-1.39) per 50*109 increment, p = 0.056). Thrombotic event rates, including device-related thrombus, increased within higher PC quartiles. Thromboembolism was associated with age (HR 1.05, 95% CI: 1.00-1.10, per year increase) and prior thromboembolism (HR 2.08, 95% CI: 1.07-4.03), but with none of the biomarkers in multivariate analysis. No association of any of the hematological markers with major bleeding was observed. Major bleeding following LAAO was associated with prior major bleeding (HR 5.27, 95% CI: 2.71-10.22), renal disease (HR 1.93, 95% CI: 1.17-3.18), and discharge on dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) (HR 1.71, 95% CI: 1.05-2.77). CONCLUSION: Most thrombotic events occurred in the highest PC quartile, but no association of any of the hematological markers with thromboembolism or major bleeding was observed in our analysis. In multivariate analysis, older age and prior thromboembolism were associated with thromboembolism. Prior major bleeding, renal disease and discharge on DAPT were multivariate predictors of major bleeding after LAAO.

Safety and effectiveness of left atrial appendage closure in atrial fibrillation patients with different types of heart failure.

BACKGROUND: Both atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) are common cardiovascular diseases. If the two exist together, the risk of stroke, hospitalization for HF and all-cause death is increased. Currently, research on left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) in patients with AF and HF is limited and controversial. This study was designed to investigate the safety and effectiveness of LAAC in AF patients with different types of HF. METHODS: Patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) and HF who underwent LAAC in the First Affiliated Hospital of Army Medical University from August 2014 to July 2021 were enrolled. According to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), the study divided into HF with reduced ejection fraction (LVEF < 50%, HFrEF) group and HF with preserved ejection fraction (LVEF ≥ 50%, HFpEF) group. The data we collected from patients included: gender, age, comorbid diseases, CHA2DS2-VASc score, HAS-BLED score, NT-proBNP level, residual shunt, cardiac catheterization results, occluder size, postoperative medication regimen, transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) results and transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) results, etc. Patients were followed up for stroke, bleeding, device related thrombus (DRT), pericardial tamponade, hospitalization for HF, and all-cause death within 2 years after surgery. Statistical methods were used to compare the differences in clinical outcome of LAAC in AF patients with different types of HF. RESULTS: Overall, 288 NVAF patients with HF were enrolled in this study, including 142 males and 146 females. There were 74 patients in the HFrEF group and 214 patients in the HFpEF group. All patients successfully underwent LAAC. The CHA2DS2-VASc score and HAS-BLED score of HFrEF group were lower than those of HFpEF group. A total of 288 LAAC devices were implanted. The average diameter of the occluders was 27.2 ± 3.5 mm in the HFrEF group and 26.8 ± 3.3 mm in the HFpEF group, and there was no statistical difference between the two groups (P = 0.470). Also, there was no statistically significant difference in the occurrence of residual shunts between the two groups as detected by TEE after surgery (P = 0.341). LVEF was significantly higher in HFrEF group at 3 days, 3 months and 1 year after operation than before (P < 0.001). At 45-60 days after surgery, we found DRT in 9 patients and there were 4 patients (5.4%) in HFrEF group and 5 patients (2.3%) in HFpEF group, with no significant difference between the two groups (P = 0.357). One patient with DRT had stroke. The incidence of stroke was 11.1% in patients with DRT and 0.7% in patients without DRT (P = 0.670). There was one case of postoperative pericardial tamponade, which was improved by pericardiocentesis at 24 h after surgery in the HFpEF group, and there was no significant difference between the two groups (P = 1.000). During a mean follow-up period of 49.7 ± 22.4 months, there were no significant differences in the incidence of stroke, bleeding, DRT and HF exacerbation between the two groups. We found a statistical difference in the improvement of HF between HFrEF group and HFpEF group (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: LAAC is safe and effective in AF patients with different types of HF. The improvement of cardiac function after LAAC is more pronounced in HFrEF group than in HFpEF group.

Left atrial appendage closure in a patient previously implanted with an interatrial shunt device: a case report.

Patients with previous interatrial shunt device (IASD) implantation may face greater challenges during future left atrial interventional procedures. Herein, we report the first case of left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) in a patient with previous IASD implantation. The patient successfully underwent LAAC using the LAmbre device without complications.

Overcoming barriers for left atrial appendage thrombus: a systematic review of left atrial appendage closure.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 90% of intracardial thrombi originate from the left atrial appendage in non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients. Even with anticoagulant therapy, left atrial appendage thrombus (LAAT) still occurs in 8% of patients. While left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) could be a promising alternative, the current consensus considers LAAT a contraindication to LAAC. However, the feasibility and safety of LAAC in patients with LAAT have yet to be determined. METHODS: This systematic review synthesizes published data to explore the feasibility and safety of LAAC for patients with LAAT. RESULTS: This study included a total of 136 patients with LAATs who underwent successful LAAC. The Amulet Amplatzer device was the most frequently utilized device (48.5%). Among these patients, 77 (56.6%) had absolute contraindications to anticoagulation therapy. Cerebral protection devices were utilized by 47 patients (34.6%). Transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) is the primary imaging technique used during the procedure. Warfarin and novel oral anticoagulants were the main anticoagulant medications used prior to the procedure, while dual antiplatelet therapy was primarily used post-procedure. During a mean follow-up period of 13.2 ± 11.5 months, there was 1 case of fatality, 1 case of stroke, 3 major bleeding events, 3 instances of device-related thrombus, and 8 cases of peri-device leakage. CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights the preliminary effectiveness and safety of the LAAC procedure in patients with persistent LAAT. Future large-scale RCTs with varied LAAT characteristics and LAAC device types are essential for evidence-based decision-making in clinical practice.

Clinical incidence and relevance of incomplete endothelialization in atrial fibrillation patients with Left Atrial Appendage Closure.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study is to investigate the incidence, potential risk factors, and clinical outcomes of incomplete device endothelialization (IDE) in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients undergoing Watchman left atrial appendage closure (LAAC). METHODS: In this study, 68 AF patients who underwent successful implantation of the Watchman device without peri-device leak (PDL) during follow-up were included. The endothelialization status was assessed using Transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) and LAA computed tomography angiography (CTA) at 6 weeks and 6 months post-implantation. Adverse cerebro-cardiac events were documented at one-year follow-up. Baseline characteristics, including age, device sizes, and clinical indicators, were analyzed as potential predictors for IDE. RESULTS: IDE was observed in 70.6% and 67.6% of patients at 6 weeks and 6 months after implantation, respectively. Higher levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) [odds ratio (OR): 15.109, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.637-139.478, p = 0.017 and OR: 11.015, 95% CI: 1.365-88.896, p = 0.024] and lower aspartate aminotransferase (AST) (OR 0.924, 95% CI: 0.865-0.986, p = 0.017 and OR: 0.930, 95% CI: 0.874-0.990, p = 0.023) at baseline were found to be significantly associated with IDE at 6 weeks and 6 months, respectively, although no significant difference in adverse cerebro-cardiac events was noted between incomplete and complete DE groups during 1-year follow-up CONCLUSIONS: IDE is found to be a prevalent occurrence in humans following LAAC. Elevated HDL-C and reduced AST levels are shown to be linked to an increased risk of IDE after LAAC.