Sex-related differences in outcome after left atrial appendage occlusion: Insights from Europe and the EWOLUTION registry.

BACKGROUND: Women with atrial fibrillation (AF) generally experience worse symptoms, poorer quality of life, and have a higher risk of stroke and death. There is limited availability of sex-related differences regarding left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO). AIMS: The aim of this study was to evaluate the sex-related differences in patients undergoing LAAO in EWOLUTION. METHODS: A total of 1025 patients scheduled for elective LAAO therapy employing the WATCHMAN Gen 2.5 prospectively consented for participation; 1005 patients received a successful implant and were followed for 2 years. As we detected sex-related differences in baseline data we performed a propensity score matching. The primary endpoint is a combined endpoint of survival free from mortality, major bleeding, ischemic stroke, transitory ischemic attack (TIA) and systemic embolization (SE) up to 2-year clinical follow-up. Secondary Endpoints were periprocedural data and overall 2-year survival. RESULTS: Women were older but had less often vascular disease and hemorrhagic stroke. There was no sex-related significant difference after LAAO at 2 years in the combined endpoint of survival free from mortality, major bleeding, ischemic stroke, TIA, and SE (female vs. male: 79% vs.76%, p = 0.24) or in overall survival (female vs. male: 85% vs. 82%, p = 0.16). Procedural data showed a higher sealing rate after the implantation in women (complete sealing female 94% vs. male 90%, p = 0.033), significantly more pericardial effusions (female 1.2% vs. male 0.2%, p = 0.031) and a similar periprocedural risk profile. CONCLUSIONS: Females undergoing LAAO differ in various baseline variables, but after adjustment, we observed similar safety and efficacy of LAAO with no significant difference in long-term outcomes between women and men.

True Efficacy of LAA Closure: Patient Outcomes on Long-term Single-Antiplatelet or No Therapy: Insights From the EWOLUTION Registry.

BACKGROUND: Left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) is recommended for patients with atrial fibrillation at increased stroke risk, where effective long-term oral anticoagulation (OAC) is not feasible. In order to assess long-term safety of LAAO with aspirin monotherapy or no therapy, we aimed to report on patients with the Watchman LAAO device (Boston Scientific) once postimplantation intensified antiplatelet or anticoagulation therapy is discontinued. METHODS: A total of 1025 patients scheduled for elective LAAO therapy prospectively consented for participation in the EWOLUTION registry; 1005 patients received a successful implant and were followed for 2 years. We identified 766 patients in EWOLUTION on single-antiplatelet therapy (SAPT; n = 639) or no therapy (n = 127) for ≥1 year following LAAO. RESULTS: Three to 6 months after LAAO, 766 patients were switched to SAPT or no therapy and were followed for at least 1 year until the study's conclusion or with events while on SAPT/ no therapy; mean time on SAPT/no therapy was 536.56 ± 177.59 days. Patients experienced 1.4 ischemic strokes per 100 patient years (PY) despite a CHA2DS2-VASC score of 4.3 ± 1.6. Major nonprocedural bleeding rates were low, with 1.3 major bleeds per 100 PY with a mean HAS-BLED score of 2.2 ± 1.2. Furthermore, the ischemic stroke rate in the SAPT/no-therapy subgroup was similar to the whole EWOLUTION collective and high-risk subgroups; the bleeding rate was even lower. When analyzed separately, strokes (2.1/100 PY) and bleedings (1.4/100 PY) of the no-therapy subgroup were similar to patients on SAPT (strokes 0.7/100 PY [P=.70]; bleedings 1.4/100 PY [P=.90]). CONCLUSIONS: Outcome data of patients on SAPT/no therapy for ≥1 year following Watchman implantation in the EWOLUTION registry suggest the efficacy and safety of LAAO.

The ALSTER-FLX Registry: 3-Month outcomes after left atrial appendage occlusion using a next-generation device, a matched-pair analysis to EWOLUTION.

BACKGROUND: The new-generation WATCHMAN FLX (Boston Scientific) device for left atrial appendage occlusion has been modified in various aspects to improve procedural results. No comparison of the WATCHMAN FLX device with the previous WATCHMAN device is available. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to compare procedural results with WATCHMAN FLX in patients on dual antiplatelet therapy at ∼3 months with data with WATCHMAN (EWOLUTION [Registry on WATCHMAN Outcomes in Real-Life Utilization]). METHODS: One hundred sixty-four consecutive patients receiving the WATCHMAN FLX device in 4 European centers were included in the retrospective ALSTER-FLX registry. As a control group for a matched-pair analysis, 1020 patients treated with the WATCHMAN device and data up to first follow-up (∼3 months) from EWOLUTION were used. RESULTS: Implantation was successful in all ALSTER-FLX patients (100%) and similar to results in EWOLUTION (99%) (P = .2). We observed no stroke or device embolization in ALSTER-FLX similar to EWOLUTION (stroke 0.5%, device embolization 0.4%) at 3 months. Numerically less ALSTER-FLX patients (2.4%) developed a device-associated thrombus as compared with 3.7% EWOLUTION patients, yet without reaching statistical significance after matching (median [95% confidence interval] device-associated thrombus pairwise event difference 2 [0-6]; P = .1). WATCHMAN FLX implantation was associated with a significant higher sealing rate compared with EWOLUTION at 3 months (ALSTER-FLX 90% vs EWOLUTION 79.4%; P = .039 after matching). Major nonprocedural bleeding events and mortality were similar after matching (median event difference for bleeding 0 [-3 to 3]; P = .6 and death 1 [-2 to 4]; P = .3). CONCLUSION: Periprocedural, early 3-month outcomes with WATCHMAN FLX demonstrate a similar safety profile and an improved sealing rate compared to the WATCHMAN device.

Incidence, predictors and outcomes of device-related thrombus after left atrial appendage closure with the WATCHMAN device-Insights from the EWOLUTION real world registry.

BACKGROUND: In this analysis of the EWOLUTION registry, we evaluated the incidence, relevance and predictors of device-related thrombus in a large multi-center real-world cohort undergoing LAAc with the WATCHMAN device. METHODS AND RESULTS: We analyzed the 835 patients who underwent percutaneous LAA closure with the WATCHMAN device in the EWOLUTION registry in whom at least one TEE follow up was performed. Patients were 74 ± 9 y/o and were at high risk for stroke and bleeding (CHA2DS2-VASC-Score 4.3 ± 1.7; HAS-BLED-Score 2.3 ± 1.2). Device-related thrombus was detected in 4.1% (34/835) after a median of 54 days (IQR 42-111 days) with 91.2% (31/34) being detected within 3 months after the procedure or at the time of first TEE. Hereby DRT occurred irrespective of postprocedural anticoagulation. Patients with DRT more frequently had long-standing, non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (82.4 vs. 64.9%, p < .01), evidence of dense spontaneous echo contrast (26.5 vs. 11.9%, p = .03) and larger LAA diameters at the ostium (22.8 ± 3.5 vs. 21.1 ± 3.5 mm, p < .01) compared to patients without DRT. Left ventricular ejection fraction, device compression ratio and the incidence of renal dysfunction did not differ between the two groups. In a multivariate analysis, only non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation identified as an independent predictor of developing DRT. Specific treatment of DRT was initiated in 62% (21/34) of patients whereas resolution was confirmed in 86% (18/21) of cases. Overall, no significant differences in annual rates of stroke/TIA or systemic embolism were observed in patients with or without DRT (DRT 1.7 vs. No-DRT 2.2%/year, p = .8). CONCLUSIONS: In real-world patients undergoing LAAc with the WATCHMAN device, DRT is rare. DRT was most frequently detected within the first 3 months after LAAc regardless of post-procedural regimen and was not associated with an increased risk of stroke or SE. While long-standing atrial fibrillation was the only independent factor associated with DRT, medical treatment of DRT resulted in a resolution of thrombi in most cases.

Cierre de orejuela izquierda en pacientes mayores de 85 años: seguridad y eficacia del registro EWOLUTION / Left atrial appendage occlusion in patients older than 85 years. Safety and efficacy in the EWOLUTION registry

INTRODUCCIÓN Y OBJETIVOS: Los pacientes ancianos con fibrilación auricular están en mayor riesgo de eventos cardioembólicos y hemorragia mayor que los más jóvenes. El cierre de la orejuela izquierda (COI) podría ser una opción atractiva para estos pacientes, pero hay pocos datos sobre los resultados del COI de pacientes de 85 o más años. El objetivo del presente estudio es evaluar la seguridad y la eficacia del COI de pacientes de 85 o más años. MÉTODOS: Se analizó a 1.025 pacientes incluidos en el registro EWOLUTION que se habían sometido al COI, se identificó a 84 de edad ≥ 85 años y se los comparó con el grupo de menos edad. RESULTADOS: Los pacientes de 85 o más años tenían mayores riesgos estimados de accidente cerebrovascular y de hemorragias que los pacientes más jóvenes (edad ≥ 85 frente a <85 años: CHA2DS2-VASc, 5,2+/-1,2 frente a 4,4+/-1,6; p <0,0001; HAS-BLED, 2,7+/-1,1 frente a 2,3+/-1,2; p = 0,003). Las tasas de éxito del procedimiento fueron altas y similares en ambos grupos (el 98,8 frente al 98,5%; p = 0,99). No hubo diferencias en las tasas de eventos adversos relacionados con el dispositivo o el procedimiento a los 7 días (el 2,6 frente al 3,1%; p = 0,80). A pesar del mayor riesgo basal de accidente cerebrovascular, en el seguimiento no hubo diferencias entre los grupos en la tasa de ictus anualizada (0,8 frente a 1,3/100 pacientes-año; p = 0,649). CONCLUSIONES: El COI de los pacientes de edad ≥ 85 años es seguro y eficaz a pesar del alto riesgo de eventos embólicos y hemorrágicos de estos pacientes. El COI puede ser una alternativa razonable a la anticoagulación oral para estos pacientes

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Elderly patients with atrial fibrillation are at greater risk of both cardioembolic events and major bleeding than younger patients. Left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) could be an attractive alternative for these patients, but there are limited data on outcomes with LAAO in patients ≥ 85 years old. The aim of the present study was to assess the safety and efficacy of LAAO in patients ≥ 85 years old. METHODS: A total of 1025 patients included in the EWOLUTION registry who underwent LAAO were analyzed and 84 patients ≥ 85 years old were identified and compared with the younger cohort. RESULTS: Patients ≥ 85 years old had higher estimated stroke and hemorrhagic risks than younger patients (CHA2DS2-VASc: 5.2+/-1.2 vs 4.4+/-1.6, P <.0001; HAS-BLED: 2.7+/-1.1 vs 2.3+/-1.2; P=.003; ≥ 85 years vs <85 years). Procedural success was high and similar in both groups (98.8% vs 98.5%; P=.99). There were no differences in 7-day device- or procedure-related adverse event rates (2.6% in ≥ 85 years vs 3.1% in <85 years; P=.80). Despite the higher baseline stroke risk, there was no difference at follow-up between the groups in the annualized stroke rate (0.8/100 patient-years in ≥ 85 years vs 1.3/100 patient-years in <85 years; P=.649). CONCLUSIONS: LAAO in patients ≥ 85 years is safe and effective even though these patients are at high risk for embolic and hemorrhagic events. LAAO may be a reasonable alternative to oral anticoagulation in these patients

Left atrial appendage occlusion in patients older than 85 years. Safety and efficacy in the EWOLUTION registry.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Elderly patients with atrial fibrillation are at greater risk of both cardioembolic events and major bleeding than younger patients. Left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) could be an attractive alternative for these patients, but there are limited data on outcomes with LAAO in patients ≥ 85 years old. The aim of the present study was to assess the safety and efficacy of LAAO in patients ≥ 85 years old. METHODS: A total of 1025 patients included in the EWOLUTION registry who underwent LAAO were analyzed and 84 patients ≥ 85 years old were identified and compared with the younger cohort. RESULTS: Patients ≥ 85 years old had higher estimated stroke and hemorrhagic risks than younger patients (CHA2DS2-VASc: 5.2±1.2 vs 4.4±1.6, P <.0001; HAS-BLED: 2.7±1.1 vs 2.3±1.2; P=.003; ≥ 85 years vs <85 years). Procedural success was high and similar in both groups (98.8% vs 98.5%; P=.99). There were no differences in 7-day device- or procedure-related adverse event rates (2.6% in ≥ 85 years vs 3.1% in <85 years; P=.80). Despite the higher baseline stroke risk, there was no difference at follow-up between the groups in the annualized stroke rate (0.8/100 patient-years in ≥ 85 years vs 1.3/100 patient-years in <85 years; P=.649). CONCLUSIONS: LAAO in patients ≥ 85 years is safe and effective even though these patients are at high risk for embolic and hemorrhagic events. LAAO may be a reasonable alternative to oral anticoagulation in these patients.

Evaluating Real-World Clinical Outcomes in Atrial Fibrillation Patients Receiving the WATCHMAN Left Atrial Appendage Closure Technology: Final 2-Year Outcome Data of the EWOLUTION Trial Focusing on History of Stroke and Hemorrhage.

BACKGROUND: Left atrial appendage occlusion with WATCHMAN has emerged as viable alternative to vitamin K antagonists in randomized controlled trials. Evaluating real-life clinical outcomes in atrial fibrillation patients receiving the WATCHMAN left atrial appendage closure technology was designed to collect prospective multicenter outcomes of thromboembolic events, bleeding, and mortality for patients implanted with a WATCHMAN in routine daily practice. METHODS: One thousand twenty patients with a WATCHMAN implant procedure were prospectively followed in 47 centers. Left atrial appendage occlusion indication was based on the European Society of Cardiology guidelines. Follow-up and imaging were performed per local practice up to a median follow-up of 2 years. RESULTS: Included population was old (age 73.4±8.9 years), at high risk for stroke (311 prior ischemic stroke/transient ischemic attack and 153 prior hemorrhagic stroke) and bleeding (318 prior major bleeding), with CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥5 in 49%, hypertension, abnormal renal/liver function, stroke, bleeding history or predisposition, Labile international normalized ratio, elderly, drugs/alcohol concomitantly ≥3 in 40% and oral anticoagulation contraindication in 72%. During follow-up, 161 patients (16.4%) died, 22 strokes were observed (1.3/100 patient-years, 83% reduction versus historic data), and 47 major nonprocedural bleeding events (2.7/100 patient-years, 46% reduction versus historic data). Stroke and bleeding rates were consistently lower than historic data in those with prior ischemic (-76% and -41%) or hemorrhagic (-81% and 67%) stroke and prior bleeding (-85% and -30%). Lowest bleeding rates were seen in patients with early discontinuation of dual antiplatelet therapy. Patients with early discontinuation of antithrombotic therapy showed lower bleeding rates, while they were highest for those with prior bleeding. Device thrombus was observed in 34 patients (4.1%) and was not correlated to drug regimen during follow-up ( P=0.28). CONCLUSIONS: During the complete 2-year follow-up of Evaluating Real-Life Clinical Outcomes in Atrial Fibrillation Patients Receiving the WATCHMAN Left Atrial Appendage Closure Technology, patients with a WATCHMAN left atrial appendage occlusion device had consistently low rates of stroke and nonprocedural bleeding, although most were contraindicated to oral anticoagulation and used only single antiplatelet therapy or nothing. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01972282.

Efficacy and safety of left atrial appendage closure with WATCHMAN in patients with or without contraindication to oral anticoagulation: 1-Year follow-up outcome data of the EWOLUTION trial.

BACKGROUND: Left atrial appendage (LAA) occlusion with WATCHMAN has emerged as viable alternative to vitamin K antagonists in randomized controlled trials. OBJECTIVE: EWOLUTION was designed to provide data in routine practice from a prospective multicenter registry. METHODS: A total of 1025 patients scheduled for a WATCHMAN implant were prospectively and sequentially enrolled at 47 centers. Indication for LAA closure was based on European Society of Cardiology guidelines. Follow-up and transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) were performed per local practice. RESULTS: The baseline CHA2DS2-VASc score was 4.5 ± 1.6; the mean age was 73.4 ± 9 years; previous transient ischemic attack/ischemic stroke was present in 312 (30.5%), 155 (15.1%) had previous hemorrhagic stroke, and 320 (31.3%) had a history of major bleeding; and 750 (73%) were deemed unsuitable for oral anticoagulation therapy. WATCHMAN implant succeeded in 1005 (98.5%) of patients, without leaks >5 mm in 1002 (99.7%) with at least 1 TEE follow-up in 875 patients (87%). Antiplatelet therapy was used in 784 (83%), while vitamin K antagonists were used in only 75 (8%). At 1 year, mortality was 98 (9.8%), reflecting the advanced age and comorbidities in this population. Device thrombus was observed in 28 patients at routine TEE (3.7%) and was not correlated with the drug regimen (P = .14). Ischemic stroke rate was 1.1% (relative risk 84% vs estimated historical data); the major bleeding rate was 2.6% and was predominantly (2.3%) nonprocedure/device related. CONCLUSION: LAA closure with the WATCHMAN device has a high implant and sealing success. This method of stroke risk reduction appears to be safe and effective with an ischemic stroke rate as low as 1.1%, even though 73% of patients had a contraindication to and were not using oral anticoagulation.

The OPTI-MIND study: a prospective, observational study of pacemaker patients according to pacing modality and primary indications.

AIMS: The OPTI-MIND study aims to collect 2-year clinical outcomes of pacemaker patients in real-world clinical practice, overall and according to patient characteristics and pacemaker settings. METHODS AND RESULTS: The present analysis of the OPTI-MIND study describes the programmed device settings after discharge from the pacemaker implant. The objective was to determine whether these settings fit recent guidelines for device-programmed physiological pacing based on the preservation of atrioventricular synchrony, avoiding unnecessary pacing, ensuring rate increase during exercise or preventing neurally mediated symptoms. A total of 1740 patients were enroled at 68 centres worldwide. Baseline patient characteristics and device programming settings are available in 1674 of 1740 patients (96%). Guidelines to ensure physiological pacing were followed in 41% of patients: in patients with sinus node disease (SND), and without atrioventricular block (AVB), device programming could have led to unnecessary right ventricular pacing in 38% of patients. In SND patients with chronotropic incompetence, assisted rate increase during exercise was not programmed in 42% of patients. In 11% of patients with AVB, atrioventricular (AV) synchrony was not pursued; the main drivers being advanced age and history of atrial fibrillation. Patients with both SND and AVB were generally programmed physiologically (87%). CONCLUSION: The present analysis showed that frequent deviations occurred when comparing the device settings at discharge from the pacemaker implant in clinical practice to the available guidelines on pacing mode selection. Analysis of 2-year outcomes in the OPTI-MIND study will provide an insight into whether specific physiological settings could improve the quality of pacing with a positive effect on patient outcome.

Clinical use of automatic pacemaker algorithms: results of the AUTOMATICITY registry.

AIMS: Follow-up of the ever-increasing numbers of patients with implantable cardiac devices places a heavy burden on clinical departments. Device automaticity may alleviate the follow-up burden by minimizing the time for physician involvement. The aim of the prospective, multicentre AUTOMATICITY registry was to examine the performance of a subset of programmed automatic algorithms during patient follow-up and their acceptance by implanting physicians. METHODS AND RESULTS: The clinical use of automatic algorithms from the Insignia pacemakers (PM; Boston Scientific, St Paul, MN, USA) was evaluated: atrial and ventricular AutoSense (sensitivity adjustment), ventricular Automatic Capture (threshold verification and output setting), AutoLifeStyle (sensor settings adjustment). The objective of the study was to assess the reprogramming rates within 12 months of implant, the reasons for reprogramming and relationship to adverse events. A total of 960 patients were enrolled in the study. The proportion of patients free from any algorithm reprogramming at 12 months was 86.1%. A total of 2736 algorithms were activated at enrolment, with 156 (5.7%) being reprogrammed in 115 patients at 12 months for any reason. Forty-nine reprogrammings (1.8%) were unintentional or related to changes in device settings such that the algorithm was no longer available, 33 (1.2%) were due to suspected sensing issues, and 22 (0.8%) were assumed related to the algorithm. The individual 12-month reprogramming-free rates were: ventricular AutoSense 94.3%, Atrial AutoSense 93.3%, AutoLifeStyle 93.9%, and Automatic Capture 95.9%. CONCLUSION: The results of the AUTOMATICITY registry show that automatic measurement of key settings and automatic adjustment to optimal programming is feasible and safe. The simplicity of PM follow-up and avoidance of frequent reprogramming may contribute to a more effective use of hospital time and resources.

Performance evaluation of a right atrial automatic capture verification algorithm using two different sensing configurations.

BACKGROUND: This acute data collection study evaluated the performance of a right atrial (RA) automatic capture verification (ACV) algorithm based on evoked response sensing from two electrode configurations during independent unipolar pacing. METHODS: RA automatic threshold tests were conducted. Evoked response signals were simultaneously recorded between the RA(Ring) electrode and an empty pacemaker housing electrode (RA(Ring)-->Can) and the electrically isolated Indifferent header electrode (RA(Ring)-->Ind). The atrial evoked response (AER) and the performance of the ACV algorithm were evaluated off-line using each sensing configuration. An accurate threshold measurement was defined as within 0.2 V of the unipolar threshold measured manually. Threshold tests were designed to fail for small AER (< 0.35 mV) or insufficient signal-to-artifact ratio (SAR < 2). Manual threshold measurements were obtained during RA unipolar and bipolar pacing and compared across device indications. RESULTS: Data were collected from 38 patients with RA bipolar leads from four manufacturers. AER signals were analyzed from 34 patients who were indicated for a pacemaker (five), implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (11), or cardiac resynchronization therapy pacemaker (six) or defibrillator (12). The minimum AER amplitude was larger (P < 0.0001) when recorded from RA(Ring)-->Can (1.6+/-0.9 mV) than from RA(Ring)-->Ind (1.3+/-0.8 mV). The algorithm successfully measured the pacing threshold in 96.8% and 91.0% of tests for RA(Ring)-->Can and RA(Ring)-->Ind, respectively. No statistical difference between the unipolar and bipolar pacing threshold was observed. CONCLUSIONS: The RA(Ring)-->Can AER sensing configuration may provide a means of implementing an independent pacing/sensing method for ACV in the RA. RA bipolar pacing therapy based on measured RA unipolar pacing thresholds may be feasible.