Embolization of percutaneous left atrial appendage closure devices: Timing, management and clinical outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Left atrial appendage (LAA) occluder embolization is an infrequent but serious complication. OBJECTIVES: We aim to describe timing, management and clinical outcomes of device embolization in a multi-center registry. METHODS: Patient characteristics, imaging findings and procedure and follow-up data were collected retrospectively. Device embolizations were categorized according to 1) timing 2) management and 3) clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Sixty-seven centers contributed data. Device embolization occurred in 108 patients. In 70.4 % of cases, it happened within the first 24 h of the procedure. The device was purposefully left in the LA and the aorta in two (1.9 %) patients, an initial percutaneous retrieval was attempted in 81 (75.0 %) and surgery without prior percutaneous retrieval attempt was performed in 23 (21.3 %) patients. Two patients died before a retrieval attempt could be made. In 28/81 (34.6 %) patients with an initial percutaneous retrieval attempt a second, additional attempt was performed, which was associated with a high mortality (death in patients with one attempt: 2.9 % vs. second attempt: 21.4 %, p < 0.001). The primary outcome (bailout surgery, cardiogenic shock, stroke, TIA, and/or death) occurred in 47 (43.5 %) patients. Other major complications related to device embolization occurred in 21 (19.4 %) patients. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of device embolizations after LAA closure occurs early. A percutaneous approach is often the preferred method for a first rescue attempt. Major adverse event rates, including death, are high particularly if the first retrieval attempt was unsuccessful. CONDENSED ABSTRACT: This dedicated multicenter registry examined timing, management, and clinical outcome of device embolization. Early embolization (70.4 %) was most frequent. As a first rescue attempt, percutaneous retrieval was preferred in 75.0 %, followed by surgical removal (21.3 %). In patients with a second retrieval attempt a higher mortality (death first attempt: 2.9 % vs. death second attempt: 24.1 %, p < 0.001) was observed. Mortality (10.2 %) and the major complication rate after device embolization were high.

Risk of Major Bleeding With Potent Antiplatelet Agents After an Acute Coronary Event: A Comparison of Ticagrelor and Clopidogrel in 5116 Consecutive Patients in Clinical Practice.

Background Major bleeding after acute coronary syndrome predicts a poor outcome but is challenging to define. The choice of antiplatelet influences bleeding risk. Methods and Results Major bleeding, subsequent myocardial infarction (MI), and all-cause mortality to 1 year were compared in consecutive patients with acute coronary syndrome treated with clopidogrel (n=2491 between 2011 and 2013) and ticagrelor (n=2625 between 2012 and 2015) in 5 English hospitals. Clinical outcomes were identified from national hospital episode statistics. Bleeding and MI events were independently adjudicated by 2 experienced clinicians, blinded to drug, sequence, and year. Bleeding events were categorized using Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 3 to 5 and PLATO (Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes) criteria and MI by the Third Universal Definition. Multivariable regression analysis was used to adjust outcomes for case mix. The median age was 68 years and 34% were women. 39% underwent percutaneous coronary intervention and 13% coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Clinical outcome data were 100% complete for bleeding and 99.7% for MI. No statistically significant difference was seen in crude or adjusted major bleeding for ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 3-5, hazard ratio [HR], 1.23; 95% CI, 0.90-1.68; P=0.2, PLATO major adjusted HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.98-1.74; P=0.07) except in the non-coronary artery bypass graft cohort (n=4464), where bleeding was more frequent with ticagrelor (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 3-5, adjusted HR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.09-2.31; P=0.017; and PLATO major HR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.18-2.37; P=0.004). There was no difference in crude or adjusted subsequent MI (adjusted HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.87-1.64; P=0.27). Crude mortality was higher in the clopidogrel group but not after adjustment, using either Cox proportional hazards or propensity matched population (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.76-1.10; P=0.21) as was the case for stroke (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.52-1.32; P=0.42). Conclusions This observational study indicates that the apparent benefit of ticagrelor demonstrated in a clinical trial population may not be observed in the broader population encountered in clinical practice. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02484924.