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.

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.

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.

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.

Impact of left atrial appendage orifice diameter on the safety and efficacy of left atrial appendage closure using the LAmbre device.

BACKGROUND: The diameter and shape of the left atrial appendage (LAA) orifices may influence occluder selection and the outcomes of left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) procedure. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of LAA orifice diameter on the safety and efficacy of LAAC using the LAmbre device. METHODS: A total of 133 patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF) who underwent LAAC with the LAmbre device between June 2018 and June 2020 were included in this study. The patients were categorized into two groups based on the maximal diameter of the LAA orifice: the large LAA group (n = 45) with a maximal orifice diameter of ≥31 mm, and the normal LAA group (n = 88) with a maximal orifice diameter of <31 mm. The study assessed periprocedural characteristics and long-term clinical follow-up. RESULTS: Successful implantation of the LAmbre device was observed in all patients. The incidence of periprocedural peridevice leakage (PDL) was significantly higher in the large LAA group (P < 0.001), while the incidence of acute pericardial effusion (PE) during the procedure was comparable between the two groups (P = 1.000). After a mean follow-up period of 4.8 ± 1.7 years, three patients in the large LAA group developed delayed PE, while no patients in the normal LAA group did (P = 0.037). Additionally, a larger LAA maximal orifice diameter was associated with a higher prevalence of PDL (P = 0.001) and PE (including both acute and delayed PE) (P = 0.027). The optimal cutoff value of the LAA maximal orifice diameter for predicting PDL and PE after LAAC with the LAmbre device was determined to be 30 mm. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that the LAmbre device is a safe and feasible option for occluding the LAA, regardless of its orifice diameter. However, it is important to note that a larger LAA orifice diameter may increase the risk of PDL and delayed PE.

Safety and efficacy of percutaneous Watchman 2.5 device versus Amplatzer Amulet for left atrial appendage closure in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation: A systematic review and study-level meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: In patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF), mechanical occlusion of the left atrial appendage (LAA) using a permanently implanted device may be an effective alternative to oral anti-coagulants (OAC). To facilitate left atrial appendage closure (LAAC), multiple percutaneous devices have been proposed. Watchman Generation 2.5 and Amplatzer Amulet are the two most popular used devices for preventing stroke in patients with NVAF. We sought to compare safety and efficacy outcomes between Watchman 2.5 and Amplatzer Amulet in patients undergoing LAAC procedure. METHODS: We carried out a comprehensive and systematic search of the databases PubMed and Scopus, for all studies that compared the safety and efficacy of Watchman 2.5 and Amplatzer Amulet devices, from inception, till June 2023. We performed the statistical analysis using Review Manager (V.5.4.1 Cochrane Collaboration, London, United Kingdom). The safety outcomes of interest included device success, device-related thrombus, device embolization perioperatively and at follow-up, perioperative pericardial perfusion events, and perioperative cardiac tamponade events. Efficacy outcomes were all-cause mortality perioperatively and at follow-up, cardiovascular (CV) mortality at follow-up, stroke, major and minor bleeding events at follow-up, transient ischemic attack (TIA) in follow-up period, thromboembolic events in follow-up period, and peri-device leakage in perioperative period. All data was analysed using a random-effects model, and presented as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (95%CIs). RESULTS: Regarding safety outcomes, device success was non-significantly reduced in Watchman group when compared with Amulet (RR 0.99, p = 0.57; I2 = 34%). In contrast, device-related thrombus was non-significantly increased in Watchman 2.5 group in comparison to Amulet (RR 1.44, p = 0.11; I2 = 0%). There was no significant difference between the devices in terms of device embolization in the perioperative (RR 0.36, p = 0.38; I2 = 22%) and follow-up (RR 2.24, p = 0.13; I2 = 0%) periods. Likewise, there was no significant difference in the risks of pericardial effusion (RR 0.98, p = 0.98; I2 = 0%), and cardiac tamponade (RR 0.65, p = 0.76; I2 = 62%) perioperatively. Regarding efficacy outcomes, no significant difference was observed in all-cause mortality between devices perioperatively (RR 0.51, p = 0.32; I2 = 0%) and at follow-up (RR 1.08, p = 0.56; I2 = 0%). CV-mortality was non-significantly reduced in Watchman group when compared with Amulet (RR 0.57, p = 0.20; I2 = 0%). The Amulet device was not superior to the Watchman device in terms of stroke at follow-up (RR 1.13, p = 0.63; I2 = 0%). Sub-group analysis showed comparable ischaemic and haemorrhagic stroke events between two devices. Furthermore, at follow-up, there was no significant difference in major (RR 1.06, p = 0.63; I2 = 0%) and minor bleeding events (RR 1.81, p = 0.17; I2 = 0%) between the two devices. No difference was observed for trans-ischemic attack (RR 1.89, p = 0.24; I2 = 0%) and thromboembolic events (RR 0.96, p = 0.96; I2 = 0%) at follow-up. No significant difference was observed between devices for peri-device leakage in perioperative period (RR 2.16, p = 0.05; I2 = 0%). CONCLUSION: The data suggested that LAAC is safe and efficacious procedure irrespective of device used, with generally low complication rates. Watchman generation 2.5 remains non-superior to Amplatzer Amulet in terms of safety and efficacy outcomes.