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.

Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion in Patients With Anticoagulation Failure vs Anticoagulation Contraindication.

BACKGROUND: Left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) provides mechanical cardioembolic protection for atrial fibrillation (AF) patients who cannot use oral anticoagulation therapy (OAT). Patients with a thrombotic event despite OAT are at high risk for recurrence and may also benefit from LAAO. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to investigate the efficacy of LAAO in AF patients with a thrombotic event on OAT compared to: 1) LAAO in AF patients with a contraindication for OAT; and 2) historical data. METHODS: The international LAAO after stroke despite oral anticoagulation (STR-OAC LAAO) collaboration included patients who underwent LAAO because of thrombotic events on OAT. This cohort underwent propensity score matching and was compared to the EWOLUTION (Evaluating Real-Life Clinical Outcomes in Atrial Fibrillation Patients Receiving the WATCHMAN Left Atrial Appendage Closure Technology) registry, which represents patients who underwent LAAO because of OAT contraindications. The primary outcome was ischemic stroke. Event rates were compared between cohorts and with historical data without OAT, yielding relative risk reductions based on risk scores. RESULTS: Analysis of 438 matched pairs revealed no significant difference in the ischemic stroke rate between the STR-OAC LAAO and EWOLUTION cohorts (2.5% vs 1.9%; HR: 1.37; 95% CI: 0.72-2.61). STR-OAC LAAO patients exhibited a higher thromboembolic risk (HR: 1.71; 95% CI: 1.04-2.83) but lower bleeding risk (HR: 0.39; 95% CI: 0.18-0.88) compared to EWOLUTION patients. The mortality rate was slightly higher in EWOLUTION (4.3% vs 6.9%; log-rank P = 0.028). Relative risk reductions for ischemic stroke were 70% and 78% in STR-OAC LAAO and EWOLUTION, respectively, compared to historical data without OAT. CONCLUSIONS: LAAO in patients with a thrombotic event on OAT demonstrated comparable stroke rates to the OAT contraindicated population in EWOLUTION. The thromboembolic event rate was higher and the bleeding rate lower, reflecting the intrinsically different risk profile of both populations. Until randomized trials are available, LAAO may be considered in patients with an ischemic event on OAT.