Impact of gender in patients with device-related thrombosis after left atrial appendage closure - A sub-analysis from the multicenter EUROC-DRT-registry.

BACKGROUND: Device-related thrombosis (DRT) is a common finding after left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) and is associated with worse outcomes. As women are underrepresented in clinical studies, further understanding of sex differences in DRT patients is warranted. METHODS AND RESULTS: This sub-analysis from the EUROC-DRT-registry compromises 176 patients with diagnosis of DRT after LAAC. Women, who accounted for 34.7% (61/176) of patients, were older (78.0 ± 6.7 vs. 74.9 ± 9.1 years, p = .06) with lower rates of comorbidities. While DRT was detected significantly later in women (173 ± 267 vs. 127 ± 192 days, p = .01), anticoagulation therapy was escalated similarly, mainly with initiation of novel oral anticoagulant (NOAC), vitamin K antagonist (VKA) or heparin. DRT resolution was achieved in 67.5% (27/40) of women and in 75.0% (54/72) of men (p = .40). In the remaining cases, an intensification/switch of anticoagulation was conducted in 50.% (9/18) of men and in 41.7% (5/12) of women. Final resolution was achieved in 72.5% (29/40) cases in women, and in 81.9% (59/72) cases in men (p = .24). Women were followed-up for a similar time as men (779 ± 520 vs. 908 ± 687 days, p = .51). Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed no difference in mortality rates in women (Hazard Ratio [HR]: 1.73, 95%-Confidence interval [95%-CI]: .68-4.37, p = .25) and no differences in stroke (HR: .83, 95%-CI: .30-2.32, p = .72) within 2 years after LAAC. CONCLUSION: Evaluation of risk factors and outcome revealed no differences between men and women, with DRT in women being diagnosed significantly later. Women should be monitored closely to assess for DRT formation/resolution. Treatment strategies appear to be equally effective.

Symptomatic vs. non-symptomatic device-related thrombus after LAAC: a sub-analysis from the multicenter EUROC-DRT registry.

BACKGROUND: Device-related thrombus (DRT) after left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) is associated with adverse outcomes, i.e. ischemic stroke or systemic embolism (SE). Data on predictors of stroke/SE in the context of DRT are limited. AIMS: This study aimed to identify predisposing factors for stroke/SE in DRT patients. In addition, the temporal connection of stroke/SE to DRT diagnosis was analyzed. METHODS: The EUROC-DRT registry included 176 patients, in whom DRT after LAAC were diagnosed. Patients with symptomatic DRT, defined as stroke/SE in the context of DRT diagnosis, were compared against patients with non-symptomatic DRT. Baseline characteristics, anti-thrombotic regimens, device position, and timing of stroke/SE were compared. RESULTS: Stroke/SE occurred in 25/176 (14.2%) patients diagnosed with DRT (symptomatic DRT). Stroke/SE occurred after a median of 198 days (IQR 37-558) after LAAC. In 45.8% stroke/SE occurred within one month before/after DRT diagnosis (DRT-related stroke). Patients with symptomatic DRT had lower left ventricular ejection fractions (50.0 ± 9.1% vs. 54.2 ± 11.0%, p = 0.03) and higher rates of non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (84.0% vs. 64.9%, p = 0.06). Other baseline parameters and device positions were not different. Most ischemic events occurred among patients with single antiplatelet therapy (50%), however, stroke/SE was also observed under dual antiplatelet therapy (25%) or oral anticoagulation (20%). CONCLUSION: Stroke/SE are documented in 14.2% and occur both in close temporal relation to the DRT finding and chronologically independently therefrom. Identification of risk factors remains cumbersome, putting all DRT patients at substantial risk for stroke/SE. Further studies are necessary to minimize the risk of DRT and ischemic events.

Clinical and echocardiographic risk factors for device-related thrombus after left atrial appendage closure: an analysis from the multicenter EUROC-DRT registry.

BACKGROUND: Data on Device-related Thrombus (DRT) after left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) remain scarce. This study aimed to investigate risk factors for DRT from centers reporting to the EUROC-DRT registry. METHODS: We included 537 patients (112 with DRT and 425 without DRT) who had undergone LAAC between 12/2008 and 04/2019. Baseline and implantation characteristics, anti-thrombotic treatment and clinical outcomes were compared between both groups in uni- and multivariate analyses. Additional propensity-score matching (PSM) was conducted to focus on the role of implantation characteristics. RESULTS: Patients with DRT showed higher rates of previous stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA) (49.1% vs. 34.7%, p < 0.01), spontaneous echocardiographic contrast (SEC) (44.9% vs. 27.7%, p < 0.01) and lower left atrial appendage (LAA) peak emptying velocity (35.4 ± 18.5 vs. 42.4 ± 18.0 cm/s, p = 0.02). Occluders implanted in DRT patients were larger (25.5 ± 3.8 vs. 24.6 ± 3.5 mm, p = 0.03) and implanted deeper in the LAA (mean depth: 7.6 ± 4.7 vs. 5.7 ± 4.7 mm, p < 0.01). Coverage of the appendage ostium was achieved less often in DRT patients (69.5% vs. 81.5%, p < 0.01), while DRT patients were less frequently on oral anticoagulation (7.1% vs. 16.7%, p < 0.01). Multivariate analysis identified age, prior stroke/TIA and SEC as independent risk factors for DRT. After PSM, implantation depth was found to be predictive. Rates of stroke/TIA were higher in DRT patients (13.5% vs. 3.8%, Hazard Ratio: 4.21 [95%-confidence interval: 1.88-9.49], p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: DRT after LAAC is associated with adverse outcome and appears to be of multifactorial origin, depending on patient characteristics, anticoagulation regimen and device position.

Clinical benefit of left atrial appendage closure in octogenarians.

OBJECTIVES: Whether left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) in octogenarians yield similar net clinical benefit compared to younger patients, was the purpose of the present study. METHODS: Two real-world LAAC registries, enrolling 744 consecutive Amplatzer and Watchman patients from 2009 to 2018, were retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: All events are reported per 100 patient-years. Two hundred and sixty one octogenarians and 483 non-octogenarians with a mean follow-up of 1.7 ± 1.3 and 2.3 ± 1.6 years, and a total of 1,502 patient-years were included. Octogenarians had a higher risk for stroke (CHA2DS2-VASc score: 5.2 ± 1.2 vs. 4.3 ± 1.7, P < 0.0001) and bleeding (HAS-BLED score: 3.3 ± 0.8 vs. 3.1 ± 1.1, P = 0.001). The combined safety endpoint of major periprocedural complications and major bleeding events at follow-up was comparable (30/446, 6.7% vs. 47/1056, 4.4%; hazard ratio [HR] = 1.2; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.73-1.98;P = 0.48) between the groups. The efficacy endpoint of all-cause stroke, systemic embolism, and cardiovascular/unexplained death occurred more often in octogenarians (61/446, 13.7% vs. 80/1056, 7.6%; HR = 7.0; 95% CI: 4.53-10.93;P < 0.0001). Overall, octogenarians had a lower net clinical benefit, i.e., the composite of all above mentioned hazards, from LAAC compared to younger patients (82/446, 18.4% vs. 116/1056, 11.0%; HR = 4.6; 95% CI: 3.11-7.0;P < 0.0001). Compared to the anticipated stroke rate, the observed rate decreased by 41% in octogenarians and 53% in non-octogenarians. The observed bleeding rate was reduced by 10% octogenarians and 41% non-octogenarians. CONCLUSIONS: LAAC can be performed with similar safety in octogenarians as compared to younger patients. On the long-term, it both reduces stroke and bleeding events, although to a lesser extent than in non-octogenarians.

Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion Device Embolization (The LAAODE Study): Understanding the Timing and Clinical Consequences from a Worldwide Experience.

BACKGROUND: Left atrial appendage occlusion device embolization (LAAODE) is rare but can have substantial implications on patient morbidity and mortality. Hence, we sought to perform an analysis to understand the timing and clinical consequences of LAAODE. METHODS: A comprehensive search of PubMed and Web of Science databases for LAAODE cases was performed from October 2nd, 2014 to November 1st, 2017. Prior to that, we included published LAAODE cases until October 1st, 2014 reported in the systematic review by Aminian et al. RESULTS: 103 LAAODE cases including Amplatzer cardiac plug (N=59), Watchman (N=31), Amulet (N=11), LAmbre (N=1) and Watchman FLX (N=1) were included. The estimated incidence of device embolization was 2% (103/5,000). LAAODE occurred more commonly in the postoperative period compared with intraoperative (61% vs. 39%). The most common location for embolization was the descending aorta 30% (31/103) and left atrium 24% (25/103) followed by left ventricle 20% (21/103). Majority of cases 75% (77/103) were retrieved percutaneously. Surgical retrieval occurred most commonly for devices embolized to the left ventricle, mitral apparatus and descending aorta. Major complications were significantly higher with postoperative LAAODE compared with intraoperative (44.4% vs. 22.5%, p=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: LAAODE is common with a reported incidence of 2% in our study. Post-operative device embolization occurred more frequently and was associated with a higher rate of complications than intraoperative device embolizations. Understanding the timings and clinical sequelae of DE can aid physicians with post procedural follow-up and also in the selection of patients for these procedures.

Device-Related Thrombus After Left Atrial Appendage Closure: Data on Thrombus Characteristics, Treatment Strategies, and Clinical Outcomes From the EUROC-DRT-Registry.

BACKGROUND: Left atrial appendage closure is an established therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation. Although device-related thrombosis (DRT) is relatively rare, it is potentially linked to adverse events. As data on DRT characteristics, outcome, and treatment regimen are scarce, we aimed to assess these questions in a multicenter approach. METHODS: One hundred fifty-six patients with the diagnosis of DRT after left atrial appendage closure were included in the multinational EUROC-DRT registry. Baseline characteristics included clinical and echocardiographic data. After inclusion, all patients underwent further clinical and echocardiographic follow-up to assess DRT dynamics, treatment success, and outcome. RESULTS: DRT was detected after a median of 93 days (interquartile range, 54­161 days) with 17.9% being detected >6 months after left atrial appendage closure. Patients with DRT were at high ischemic and bleeding risk (CHA2DS2-VASc 4.5±1.7, HAS-BLED 3.3±1.2) and had nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation (67.3%), previous stroke (53.8%), and spontaneous echo contrast (50.6%). The initial treatment regimens showed comparable resolution rates (antiplatelet monotherapy: 57.1%, dual antiplatelet therapy: 85.7%, vitamin K antagonists: 80.0%, novel oral anticoagulants: 75.0%, and heparin: 68.6%). After intensification or switch of treatment, complete DRT resolution was achieved in 79.5% of patients. Two-year follow-up revealed a high risk of mortality (20.0%) and ischemic stroke (13.8%) in patients with DRT. Patients with incomplete DRT resolution showed numerically higher stroke rates and increased mortality rates (stroke: 17.6% versus 12.3%, P=0.29; mortality: 31.3% versus 13.1%, P=0.05). CONCLUSIONS: A substantial proportion of DRT is detected >6 months after left atrial appendage closure, highlighting the need for imaging follow-up. Patients with DRT appear to be at a high risk for stroke and mortality. While DRT resolution was achieved in most patients, incomplete DRT resolution appeared to identify patients at even higher risk. Optimal DRT diagnostic criteria and treatment regimens are warranted.

Impact of conscious sedation and general anesthesia on periprocedural outcomes in Watchman left atrial appendage closure.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) is performed either in conscious sedation (CS) or general anesthesia (GA), and limited data exist regarding clinical outcomes for the two approaches. The aim of the study was to analyze the effect of CS versus GA on acute outcomes in a large patient cohort undergoing LAAC with a Watchman occluder. METHODS: A cohort of 521 consecutive patients underwent LAAC with Watchman occluders at two centers (REGIOMED hospitals, Germany) between 2012 and 2018. One site performed 303 consecutive LAAC procedures in GA, and the other site performed 218 consecutive procedures in CS. The safety endpoint was a composite of major periprocedural complications and postoperative pneumonia. The efficacy endpoint was defined as device success. RESULTS: After a 1:1 propensity score matching, 196 (CS) vs. 115 (GA) patients could be compared. In 5 (2.6%) cases CS was converted to GA. The primary safety endpoint (3.5% [CS] vs. 7.0% [GA], p = 0.18) and its components (major periprocedural complications: 2.5% vs. 3.5%, p = 0.73; postoperative pneumonia: 2.6% vs. 4.3%, p = 0.51) did not differ between the groups. Also, device success was comparable (96.9% vs. 93.9%, p = 0.24). CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing LAAC with the Watchman device, conscious sedation and general anesthesia showed comparable device success rates and safety outcomes. The type of anesthesia for LAAC may therefore be tailored to patient comorbidities, operator experience, and hospital logistics.

Impact of individual stroke risk on outcome after Amplatzer left atrial appendage closure in patients with atrial fibrillation.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate periprocedural and long-term outcome of left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) using Amplatzer occluders with respect to individual pre-procedural stroke risk. BACKGROUND: LAAC is a proven strategy for prevention from stroke and bleeding in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation not amenable to oral anticoagulation. Whether individual pre-procedural stroke risk may affect procedural and long-term clinical outcome after LAAC is unclear. METHODS: Multicenter study of consecutive patients who underwent Amplatzer-LAAC. Using pre-procedural CHADS2 score, outcomes were compared between a low (0-2 points) and a high stroke risk group (3-6 points). RESULTS: Five hundred consecutive patients (73.9 ± 10.1 years) who underwent Amplatzer-LAAC. Two hundred and forty eight had preprocedural CHADS2 score ≤ 2 points (low-risk group) and the remaining 252 patients had 3-6 points (high-risk group). Periprocedural complication rates (6.0% vs. 5.6%, p = .85), procedural success (LAAC without major periprocedural or device-related complications or major para-device leaks: 89.4% vs. 87.9%, p = .74), and 30-day-mortality (2.4% vs. 2.6%, p = .77) were comparable. After 1,346 patient-years (PY), the long-term composite efficacy endpoint (stroke, systemic embolism, cardiovascular, and unexplained death) was reached in 23/653 (3.5/100 PY) versus 52/693 (7.5/100 PY); HR = 2.13; 95%-CI, 1.28-3.65, p = .002) with stroke rates 67% and 68% lower than anticipated by preprocedural CHADS2 score. Combined safety endpoint (major periprocedural complications and major, life-threatening or fatal bleedings) occurred in 22/653 (3.4/100 PY) versus 28/693 (4.0/100 PY); HR = 1.20; 95%-CI, 0.66-2.20, p = .52). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with patients at low risk of stroke, LAAC with Amplatzer devices is associated with similar safety and efficacy in high-risk patients in our study.

Amplatzer left atrial appendage closure: Single versus combined procedures.

OBJECTIVES: This study compares procedural and late clinical outcomes of left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) with Amplatzer devices as a single versus a combined procedure with other structural or coronary interventions. BACKGROUND: Multiple cardiac conditions are frequent among elderly patients and invite simultaneous treatment to ensure a favorable patient outcomes. METHODS: 559 consecutive patients (73.3 ± 11.1 years) underwent LAAC with Amplatzer devices at two centres (Bern and Zurich university hospitals, Switzerland) either as a single procedure or combined with other interventions. The primary safety endpoint was a composite of major peri-procedural complications and major bleeding at follow-up, the primary efficacy endpoint included stroke, systemic embolism, and cardiovascular/unexplained death. All event rates are reported per 100 patient-years. RESULTS: In 263 single and 296 combined procedures with percutaneous coronary interventions (47.6%), closure of an atrial septal defect (8.4%) or a patent foramen ovale (36.5%), transcatheter aortic valve implantation (10.1%), mitral clipping (4.1%), atrial fibrillation ablation (8.8%), or another procedure (3.0%) were analyzed. Device success (96.6% [single] vs. 99.0% [combined], p = .08) did not differ between the groups. After a mean follow-up of 2.6 ± 1.5 vs. 2.5 ± 1.5 years and a total of 1,422 patient-years, the primary efficacy (40/677, 5.9% [single] vs. 37/745, 5.0% [combined]; HR, 1.2, 95% CI, 0.8-1.9, p = .44), as well as the primary safety endpoint (25/677, 3.7% vs 28/745, 3.8%; HR, 1.0, 95% CI, 0.6-1.8, p = .89) were comparable. CONCLUSIONS: LAAC with Amplatzer devices combined with structural, coronary, and electrophysiological procedures offers procedural feasibility and safety, as well as long-term efficacy.

Propensity-matched comparison of antiplatelet versus anticoagulant after left atrial appendage closure with the Watchman.

BACKGROUND: Optimal antithrombotic therapy following left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) with the Watchman occluder remains uncertain. This study retrospectively compared clinical outcomes of a 3-month dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT group) and a protocol of anticoagulation plus aspirin for 45 days followed by DAPT for 6 months (ACT group) after LAAC with the Watchman device. METHODS: Of two Watchman registries (Coburg and Lichtenfels hospitals, Germany), 220 and 304 consecutive patients with successful LAAC were included. Patients in Coburg hospital received DAPT while they received ACT in Lichtenfels. After a 1:1 propensity score matching, 174 (DAPT) versus 174 (ACT) patients were compared by use of the primary efficacy endpoint of thromboembolic events and cardiovascular/unexplained death, the primary safety endpoint of nonprocedural related major bleeding events at follow-up, and the combined hazard endpoint, a composite of all above-mentioned hazards. RESULTS: The mean age 77.5 ± 7.2 (DAPT) versus 77.3 ± 7.1 (ACT) years, CHA2 DS2 -VASc score 4.6 ± 1.5 versus 4.7 ± 1.6, and HAS-BLED score 3.3 ± 0.8 versus 3.3 ± 0.8 were similar. After 12 months, the clinical efficacy (13/174, 7.4% [DAPT] vs 11/174, 6.3% [ACT]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.38-1.86; P = .66) and safety (6/174, 3.4% vs 8/174, 4.5%; HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.29-2.56; P = .79) as well as the combined hazard endpoint (18/174, 10.3% vs 18/174, 10.3%; HR,1.01; 95% CI, 0.53-1.95; P = .97) were comparable. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests comparable efficacy and safety of 3-month DAPT versus 6 weeks ACT plus aspirin following LAAC with the Watchman.

Utilization of percutaneous left atrial appendage closure in patients with atrial fibrillation: an update on patient outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with an increased risk of stroke, morbidity and overall mortality. So far, oral anticoagulation (OAC) is the standard of care for stroke prevention, either with vitamin K antagonists or with non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs). The left atrial appendage (LAA) can be eliminated by epicardial or endocardial exclusion. Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) represents a mechanical thromboprophylaxis - which has also been termed mechanical vaccination - against stroke, bleeding and death. AREAS COVERED: Studies show that LAAC provides stroke prevention comparable to (N)OAC. Additionally, a notable reduction of bleeding events and its associated mortality is achieved by LAAC. With accruing experience and advances in patient selection, procedural planning, implantation techniques and devices, contemporary LAAC registries report high rates of success and low rates of complications. EXPERT OPINION: The decision to provide the most appropriate stroke prevention for patients with AF (OAC, NOAC or LAAC) needs to be individualized to patients' thromboembolic and bleeding risk and life expectancy. This review on LAAC provides an update on contemporary devices and techniques, as well as recommendations for patient selection and management.

Left atrial appendage closure versus medical therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation: the APPLY study.

AIMS: Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) with AMPLATZER occluders is used for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF). Net clinical benefit compared to medical therapy has not been tested. The aim of this study was to test whether long-term clinical outcome after LAAC with AMPLATZER occluders may be similar to medical therapy. METHODS AND RESULTS: Five hundred consecutive patients who underwent LAAC with AMPLATZER occluders were compared to 500 patients with medical therapy by propensity score matching. The primary efficacy endpoint was a composite of stroke, systemic embolism and cardiovascular/unexplained death. The primary safety endpoint consisted of major procedural adverse events and major bleedings. For assessment of net clinical benefit, all of the above-mentioned hazards were combined. After 2,645 patient-years at a mean follow-up of 2.7±1.5 years, the primary efficacy endpoint was reached by 75/1,342, 5.6% in the LAAC group versus 102/1,303, 7.8% per 100 patient-years (hazard ratio [HR] 0.70, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.53-0.95, p=0.026). The primary safety endpoint occurred in 48/1,342, 3.6% versus 60/1,303, 4.6% per 100 patient-years (HR 0.80, 95% CI: 0.55-1.18, p=0.21), and the combined hazard endpoint in 109/1,342, 8.1% versus 142/1,303, 10.9% per 100 patient-years (HR 0.76, 95% CI: 0.60-0.97, p=0.018). Patients receiving LAAC demonstrated lower rates of both all-cause and cardiovascular mortality (111/1,342, 8.3% vs 151/1,303, 11.6% per 100 patient-years [HR 0.72, 95% CI: 0.56-0.92, p=0.005] and 54/1,342, 4.0% vs 84/1,303, 6.5% per 100 patient-years [HR 0.64, 95% CI: 0.46-0.89, p=0.007]). CONCLUSIONS: LAAC with AMPLATZER devices showed a net clinical benefit over medical therapy by superior efficacy, similar safety and a benefit in all-cause and cardiovascular mortality.

Late clinical outcomes of lambre versus amplatzer occluders for left atrial appendage closure.

INTRODUCTION: The LAmbre (LifeTech Scientific, Shenzhen, China) is a novel occluder for left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) in patients with atrial fibrillation. This study compares late clinical outcomes of LAmbre and the established Amplatzer devices (Abbott, St Paul, MN). METHODS: Between 2012 and 2018, 265 consecutive patients underwent LAAC with LAmbre and Amplatzer devices at a single center. After a 3:1 propensity score matching, 40 (LAmbre) vs 107 (Amplatzer) patients were compared by the primary efficacy endpoint of all-cause stroke, systemic embolism and cardiovascular/unexplained death, the primary safety endpoint of major periprocedural complications and major bleeding events at follow-up, and the combined hazard endpoint, a composite of all the above-mentioned hazards. RESULTS: The mean age 75.6 ± 8.9 (LAmbre) vs 75.5 ± 9.0 (Amplatzer) years, CHA2 DS2 -VASc score 4.8 ± 1.7 vs 4.8 ± 1.7 and HAS-BLED score 3.1 ± 0.9 vs 3.2 ± 0.8 were similar. After 3.6 ± 1.9 vs 2.5 ± 1.4 years, the clinical efficacy (12/146, 8.2% [LAmbre] vs 28/266, 10.5% [Amplatzer]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.38-1.40; P = .34) and safety (5/146, 3.4% vs 14/266, 5.3%; HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.14-1.6; P = .22), as well as the combined hazard endpoint (15/146, 10.3% vs 36/266, 13.6%; HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.36-1.25; P = .21) were comparable. CONCLUSION: In the presented report, in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, the LAmbre offered similar long-term efficacy and safety in comparison to Amplatzer devices.

Clinical outcomes of Watchman vs. Amplatzer occluders for left atrial appendage closure (WATCH at LAAC).

AIMS: This study compares clinical outcomes of Watchman vs. Amplatzer devices for left atrial appendage closure (LAAC). METHODS AND RESULTS: Of two real-world registries, the Watchman registry Lichtenfels, Germany, and the Amplatzer registry Bern-Zurich, Switzerland, 303 and 333 consecutive patients, respectively, were included. After a 1:1 propensity score matching, 266 vs. 266 patients were compared by use of the predefined primary efficacy endpoint of stroke, systemic embolism and cardiovascular/unexplained death, the primary safety endpoint of major peri-procedural complications and major bleeding events at follow-up, and the combined hazard endpoint, a composite of all above-mentioned hazards. Mean age was 75.3 ± 7.8 (Watchman) vs. 75.1 ± 9.9 (Amplatzer) years, CHA2DS2-VASc score 4.5 ± 1.7 vs. 4.5 ± 1.5, and HAS-BLED score 3.2 ± 1.0 vs. 3.2 ± 1.0. At a mean follow-up of 2.4 ± 1.3 vs. 2.5 ± 1.5 years and 1.322 patient-years, the primary endpoints of efficacy [40/646, 6.2% [Watchman] vs. 43/676, 6.4% [Amplatzer]; hazard ratio (HR), 1.02; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.66-1.58; P = 0.92] and safety (33/646, 5.1% vs. 30/676, 4.4%; HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.29-1.11; P = 0.10), as well as the combined hazard endpoint (69/646, 10.7% vs. 66/676, 9.8%; HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.55-1.12; P = 0.26) were similar for both groups. CONCLUSION: This study suggests comparable efficacy and safety of the Watchman and Amplatzer devices.

Cierre de la orejuela izquierda por ictus pese a la anticoagulación oral (ictus resistente): resultados del registro Amplatzer Cardiac Plug / Left atrial appendage occlusion for stroke despite oral anticoagulation (resistant stroke). Results from the Amplatzer Cardiac Plug registry

INTRODUCCIÓN Y OBJETIVOS: A pesar de la eficacia de los anticoagulantes orales (ACO), algunos pacientes mantienen una alto riesgo residual y presentan ictus aun estando en tratamiento con ACO, y falta evidencia sobre el tratamiento de estos pacientes. El objetivo del estudio es analizar la seguridad y la eficacia del cierre percutáneo de la orejuela izquierda (OI) como prevención secundaria para pacientes con fibrilación auricular no valvular que han experimentado un ictus/accidente isquémico transitorio a pesar de los ACO (ictus resistente [IR]). MÉTODOS: Se estudió a 1.047 pacientes consecutivos con fibrilación auricular no valvular sometidos a cierre percutáneo de la OI incluidos en el registro multicéntrico Amplatzer Cardiac Plug. Se seleccionó a los pacientes con IR como indicación para el cierre de la OI, y se los comparó con pacientes con otras indicaciones. RESULTADOS: En un total de 115 pacientes (11%) se produjo un IR. Las escalas CHA2DS2-VASc y HAS-BLED eran significativamente más altas en el grupo de IR (5,5+/-1,5 frente a 4,3+/-1,6; p <0,001 y 3,9+/-1,3 frente a 3,1+/-1,2; p <0,001). No hubo diferencias significativas en los eventos mayores de seguridad periprocedimiento (el 7,8 frente al 4,5%; p = 0,1). Tras 16,2+/-12,2 meses de seguimiento medio, la tasa anual de ictus/accidente isquémico transitorio observada fue del 2,6% (el 65% de reducción del riesgo) y la tasa anual de hemorragia mayor observada fue del 0% (el 100% de reducción del riesgo) en los pacientes con IR. CONCLUSIONES: Los pacientes con IR sometidos a cierre percutáneo de la OI presentaron resultados de seguridad similares que los pacientes sin IR, con una reducción significativa de los eventos de ictus/accidente isquémico transitorio y hemorragia mayor durante el seguimiento

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Despite the efficacy of oral anticoagulant (OAC) therapy, some patients continue to have a high residual risk and develop a stroke on OAC therapy (resistant stroke [RS]), and there is a lack of evidence on the management of these patients. The aim of this study was to analyze the safety and efficacy of left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) as secondary prevention in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation who have experienced a stroke/transient ischemic attack despite OAC treatment. METHODS: We analyzed data from the Amplatzer Cardiac Plug multicenter registry on 1047 consecutive patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation undergoing LAAO. Patientes with previous stroke on OAC therapy as indication for LAAO were identified and compared with patients with other indications. RESULTS: A total of 115 patients (11%) with RS were identified. The CHA2DS2-VASc and the HAS-BLED score were significantly higher in the RS group (respectively 5.5+/-1.5 vs 4.3+/-1.6; P <.001; 3.9+/-1.3 vs 3.1+/-1.2; P <.001). No significant differences were observed in periprocedural major safety events (7.8 vs 4.5%; P=.1). With a mean clinical follow-up of 16.2+/-12.2 months, the observed annual stroke/transient ischemic attack rate for the RS group was 2.6% (65% risk reduction) and the observed annual major bleeding rate was 0% (100% risk reduction). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with RS undergoing LAAO showed similar safety outcomes to patients without RS, with a significant reduction in stroke/transient ischemic attack and major bleeding events during follow-up. Adequately powered controlled trials are needed to further investigate the use of LAAO in RS patients

Incidence, predictors, and relevance of acute kidney injury in patients undergoing left atrial appendage closure with Amplatzer occluders: a multicentre observational study.

AIMS: Acute kidney injury (AKI) remains a frequent complication after cardiac interventions, such as left atrial appendage closure (LAAC), yet limited data are available on the incidence and clinical implication of AKI in this setting. We sought to assess incidence, predictors and relevance of AKI after LAAC. METHODS AND RESULTS: We retrospectively analyzed 95 LAAC patients in three European centers. AKI was defined according to the Acute Kidney Injury Network (AKIN) classification. The incidence of AKI was 13.7% with mild AKI in 92.3% and AKI stage > II in 7.7%. Total contrast volume was not linked to the occurrence of AKI (AKI: 127 ± 83 vs. no AKI: 109 ± 92 ml, p = 0.41), however increasing contrast volume (CV) to glomerular filtration rate (GFR) ratio (CV/GFR ratio) was associated with an increased risk of AKI (OR, per unit increase: 1.24, 95% CI 0.97-1.58, p = 0.08). ROC-analysis revealed a moderate predictive value of CV/GFR ratio for the prediction of AKI (AUC: 0.67, 95% CI 0.50-0.84, p = 0.05). Furthermore, AKI was associated with significantly increased mortality 6 months and 1 year after LAAC. No significant difference in the incidence of AKI was observed between patients with mere fluoroscopic and additional echocardiographic guidance (16.3% vs. 11.5%, p = 0.56). CONCLUSION: Whereas mild AKI is common in patients after LAAC, severe AKI is rare. AKI after LAAC is associated with poor baseline renal function, increased doses of contrast (CV/GFR ratio) and impaired outcome. Future studies will be needed to elaborate the benefit of reducing or avoiding contrast volume regarding this endpoint.

Long-term clinical outcomes of Amplatzer cardiac plug versus Amulet occluders for left atrial appendage closure.

OBJECTIVES: To compare long-term clinical outcomes after left atrial appendage closure with the Amplatzer Cardiac Plug (ACP) and Amulet. BACKGROUND: The Amulet was designed to improve clinical outcomes of first-generation ACP. METHODS: Three Amplatzer registries (Bern, Coburg, Zurich), with enrollment of patients from 2009 to 2018, were retrospectively analyzed. The primary safety endpoint was a composite of major peri-procedural complications and major bleedings, the primary efficacy endpoint included stroke, systemic embolism, and cardiovascular/unexplained death. The net clinical benefit was a combination of all above-mentioned hazards. RESULTS: A total of consecutive 563 patients (344 ACP vs. 219 Amulet) with a mean follow-up of 2.9 ± 1.6 and 1.9 ± 0.9 years were included. Mean age (74.4 ± 9.9 [ACP] vs. 74.4 ± 9.1 [Amulet] years), stroke (CHA2 DS2 -VASc score 4.4 ± 1.6 vs. 4.6 ± 1.7), and bleeding risk (HAS-BLED score 3.2 ± 1.1 vs. 3.2 ± 0.9) were comparable. The primary endpoints of efficacy (72/998, 7.2% [ACP] vs. 43/417, 10.3% [Amulet]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44-1.02, p = .062), safety (40/998, 4.0% vs. 18/417, 4.3%; HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.53-2.51, p = .72), and the net clinical benefit (101/998, 10.1% vs. 55/417, 13.4%; HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.49-1.07, p = .11) were similar. CONCLUSION: In the long term, left atrial appendage closure with first and second-generation Amplatzer devices provided similar efficacy, safety, and net clinical benefit. Clinical outcomes may be rather determined by implantation technique and hemodynamics, but not by the design modifications of the Amulet.

Left atrial appendage occlusion for stroke despite oral anticoagulation (resistant stroke). Results from the Amplatzer Cardiac Plug registry.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Despite the efficacy of oral anticoagulant (OAC) therapy, some patients continue to have a high residual risk and develop a stroke on OAC therapy (resistant stroke [RS]), and there is a lack of evidence on the management of these patients. The aim of this study was to analyze the safety and efficacy of left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) as secondary prevention in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation who have experienced a stroke/transient ischemic attack despite OAC treatment. METHODS: We analyzed data from the Amplatzer Cardiac Plug multicenter registry on 1047 consecutive patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation undergoing LAAO. Patientes with previous stroke on OAC therapy as indication for LAAO were identified and compared with patients with other indications. RESULTS: A total of 115 patients (11%) with RS were identified. The CHA2DS2-VASc and the HAS-BLED score were significantly higher in the RS group (respectively 5.5±1.5 vs 4.3±1.6; P <.001; 3.9±1.3 vs 3.1±1.2; P <.001). No significant differences were observed in periprocedural major safety events (7.8 vs 4.5%; P=.1). With a mean clinical follow-up of 16.2±12.2 months, the observed annual stroke/transient ischemic attack rate for the RS group was 2.6% (65% risk reduction) and the observed annual major bleeding rate was 0% (100% risk reduction). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with RS undergoing LAAO showed similar safety outcomes to patients without RS, with a significant reduction in stroke/transient ischemic attack and major bleeding events during follow-up. Adequately powered controlled trials are needed to further investigate the use of LAAO in RS patients.

Transseptal puncture versus patent foramen ovale or atrial septal defect access for left atrial appendage closure.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to compare the periprocedural and late clinical outcomes of left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) with AMPLATZER devices by access through transseptal puncture (TSP) versus a patent foramen ovale (PFO) or an atrial septal defect (ASD). METHODS AND RESULTS: Between 2009 and 2018, 578 consecutive patients underwent LAAC via TSP or PFO/ASD access in three centres. After a 3:1 propensity score matching, 246 (TSP) versus 91 (PFO/ASD) patients were compared using the primary efficacy endpoint of all-cause stroke, systemic embolism and cardiovascular/unexplained death and the primary safety endpoint of major periprocedural complications and major bleedings at follow-up. Mean age was 75.2±8.7 (TSP) vs 74.4±10.9 (PFO/ASD) years, CHA2DS2-VASc score 4.5±1.6 vs 4.3±1.4 and HAS-BLED score 3.3±1.0 vs 3.3±0.9. Device success (97.6% vs 97.8%, p=0.90) was similar. After 2.5±1.4 vs 2.6±1.6 years, clinical efficacy (46/603, 7.6% [TSP] vs 21/233, 9.0% [PFO/ASD], hazard ratio [HR] 1.2; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.69-0.85, p=0.54) and safety (24/603, 4.0% vs 11/233, 4.7%; HR 1.4; 95% CI: 0.52-3.6, p=0.49) did not differ. CONCLUSIONS: Use of a PFO/ASD access for LAAC with AMPLATZER devices offers similar periprocedural and late clinical outcomes to TSP. Simultaneous PFO/ASD closure for an additional protective benefit does not increase risk.

Coronary wave intensity patterns in stable coronary artery disease: influence of stenosis severity and collateral circulation.

Objective: Wave intensity analysis is a method that allows separating pulse waves into components generated proximally and in the periphery of arterial trees, as well as characterising them as accelerating or decelerating. The early diastolic suction wave (eaDSW) is one of the most prominent wave events in the coronaries. The aim of this study was to determine whether (1) microvascular dilatation directly influences its energy, (2) stenosis severity can be assessed proximal to stenoses, (3) distal pulse wave entrapment exists in the presence of stenoses and (4) coronary collaterals influence wave entrapment. Methods: In 43 coronary artery disease patients, Doppler flow velocity and pressure measurements were performed in a proximal coronary segment at rest, in a distal segment at rest, during adenosine-induced hyperaemia and during balloon occlusion. Wave energies were calculated as the area under the wave intensity curves. Results: The eaDSW energy showed a significant increase during hyperaemia, but did not differ between proximal and distal segments. There was no significant correlation between eaDSW energy and coronary stenosis severity. Pulse wave entrapment could not be observed consistently in the distal segments. Consequently, the effect of coronary collaterals on pulse wave entrapment could not be studied. Conclusions: Microvascular dilation in the coronary circulation increases distal eaDSW energy. However, it does not show any diagnostically useful variation between measurement sites, various stenosis degrees and amount of collateral flow. The assessment eaDSW and its reflections were not useful for the quantification of coronary stenosis severity or the collateral circulation in clinical practice.