Pulmonary Vein Isolation With or Without Left Atrial Appendage Ligation in Atrial Fibrillation: The aMAZE Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Left atrial appendage elimination may improve catheter ablation outcomes for atrial fibrillation. Objective: To assess the safety and effectiveness of percutaneous left atrial appendage ligation adjunctive to catheter pulmonary vein isolation for nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter, prospective, open-label, randomized clinical trial evaluated the safety and effectiveness of percutaneous left atrial appendage ligation adjunctive to planned pulmonary vein isolation for nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation present for less than 3 years. Eligible patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to undergo left atrial appendage ligation and pulmonary vein isolation or pulmonary vein isolation alone. Use of a 2:1 randomization ratio was intended to provide more device experience and safety data. Patients were enrolled from October 2015 to December 2019 at 53 US sites, with the final follow-up visit on April 21, 2021. Interventions: Left atrial appendage ligation plus pulmonary vein isolation compared with pulmonary vein isolation alone. Main Outcomes and Measures: A bayesian adaptive analysis was used for primary end points. Primary effectiveness was freedom from documented atrial arrythmias of greater than 30 seconds duration 12 months after undergoing pulmonary vein isolation. Rhythm was assessed by Holter monitoring at 6 and 12 months after pulmonary vein isolation, symptomatic event monitoring, or any electrocardiographic tracing obtained through 12 months after pulmonary vein isolation. Primary safety was a composite of predefined serious adverse events compared with a prespecified 10% performance goal 30 days after the procedure. Left atrial appendage closure was evaluated through 12 months after pulmonary vein isolation. Results: Overall, 404 patients were randomized to undergo left atrial appendage ligation plus pulmonary vein isolation and 206 were randomized to undergo pulmonary vein isolation alone. Primary effectiveness was 64.3% with left atrial appendage ligation and pulmonary vein isolation and 59.9% with pulmonary vein isolation only (difference, 4.3% [bayesian 95% credible interval, -4.2% to 13.2%]; posterior superiority probability, 0.835), which did not meet the statistical criterion to establish superiority (0.977). Primary safety was met, with a 30-day serious adverse event rate of 3.4% (bayesian 95% credible interval, 2.0% to 5.0%; posterior probability, 1.0) which was less than the prespecified threshold of 10%. At 12 months after pulmonary vein isolation, complete left atrial appendage closure (0 mm residual communication) was observed in 84% of patients and less than or equal to 5 mm residual communication was observed in 99% of patients. Conclusions and Relevance: Percutaneous left atrial appendage ligation adjunctive to pulmonary vein isolation did not meet prespecified efficacy criteria for freedom from atrial arrhythmias at 12 months compared with pulmonary vein isolation alone for patients with nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation, but met prespecified safety criteria and demonstrated high rates of closure at 12 months. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02513797.

Feasibility of Amulet occluder implantation after failed left atrial appendage occlusion attempt: Insights from the EMERGE LAA postapproval study.

BACKGROUND: Although expertise in left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) has grown, certain intricate anatomies may pose challenges, rendering them unsuitable for LAAO with the selected device. OBJECTIVE: This analysis aimed to characterize outcomes of patients with prior failed percutaneous LAAO procedures who underwent a subsequent attempt with an Amulet occluder in the EMERGE LAA postapproval study. METHODS: Patients enrolled in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry LAAO Registry who had an Amulet occluder implantation attempt between Food and Drug Administration approval (August 14, 2021) and June 30, 2023, were evaluated. A safety end point through 7 days or hospital discharge (whichever was later) and major adverse events through 45 days were reported. RESULTS: A total of 8591 patients underwent attempted Amulet occluder implantation, of whom 244 patients had prior failed LAAO. Implantation success was 88.9% and 96.2% in patients with prior failed LAAO and index LAAO, respectively (P < .001). The safety composite end point was low, occurring in 1.6% and 0.8% of patients with prior failed LAAO and index LAAO, respectively (P = .148). Any major adverse event through 45 days occurred in 7.4% and 6.3% of prior failed LAAO and index LAAO patient cohorts, respectively (P = .497); most adverse events were similar between the groups (P > .05). At 45 days, peridevice leak ≤3 mm was achieved in >90% of patients in either group. CONCLUSION: A high degree of implantation success with a low rate of adverse events can be achieved with the Amulet occluder. The findings imply that the dual occlusive mechanism Amulet occluder facilitates successful closure, even in challenging anatomic scenarios.

Challenges and advances in device-related thrombus in left atrial appendage occlusion.

Oral anticoagulation therapy (OAC) is a mainstay for mitigating stroke and other embolic events in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Despite the demonstrated efficacy of OAC in reducing events, many patients are unable to tolerate OAC due to bleeding risks. Left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) devices were developed as implantable technologies to moderate stroke risk in patients with intolerance to OAC. Despite clinical data supporting near-comparable protection against thromboembolic events with OAC, device-related thrombus formation has emerged as a critical complication following LAAO that remains a potential limitation to the safety and efficacy of LAAO. Improved biocompatibility of LAAO devices with fluoropolymers, a well-established stent-coating technology used to reduce thrombus formation and promote endothelialization, may optimize outcomes after LAAO.

[Box: see text].

First Experience With Amulet in the United States: Early Insights From EMERGE LAA Postapproval Study.

BACKGROUND: The Food and Drug Administration approved the Amulet occluder (Abbott) after demonstrating safety and effectiveness in the Amulet IDE (AMPLATZER Amulet LAA Occluder) trial. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the EMERGE Left Atrial Appendage study is to evaluate early postapproval outcomes of the Amulet occluder in the United States using data from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion Registry. METHODS: Patients with a commercial Amulet occluder implant attempt between Food and Drug Administration approval (August 14, 2021) and December 31, 2022, were included. The safety composite endpoint included all-cause death, ischemic stroke, systemic embolism, or device/procedure-related events requiring open cardiac surgery or endovascular intervention between device implantation and 7 days or hospital discharge (whichever is later). Major adverse events through 45 days were also reported and stratified by operator experience (early [<10 cases], moderate [10-29 cases], and high [30+ cases]). RESULTS: A total of 5,499 patients underwent attempted Amulet occluder implantation. Implant success was 95.8%, and complete closure was 97.2% post-left atrial appendage occlusion and 87.1% at 45 days. A safety composite endpoint event occurred in 0.76% patients. Any major adverse event occurred in 2.9% and 5.7% of patients in-hospital and through 45 days, respectively, driven by major bleeding and pericardial effusion (PE) requiring intervention. PE requiring surgery or percutaneous intervention decreased significantly with increasing experience both in-hospital (early vs high operator experience 1.8% vs 1.1%; P = 0.006) and at 45 days (2.3% vs 1.5%; P = 0.012). CONCLUSIONS: The EMERGE Left Atrial Appendage study demonstrates favorable safety and effectiveness of the Amulet occluder in the real-world setting. More experienced operators had improved implant success and fewer PEs, suggesting a learning curve effect implanting this dual occlusive mechanism device.

Autonomic Effects of Pulsed Field vs Thermal Ablation for Treating Atrial Fibrillation: Subanalysis of ADVENT.

BACKGROUND: Autonomic denervation is an ancillary phenomenon during thermal ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF), that may have synergistic effects on symptomatic improvement and long-term freedom from AF. Pulsed field ablation (PFA), a nonthermal ablation modality, was noninferior to thermal ablation in treating AF; however, PFA's relative myocardial selectivity may minimize autonomic effects. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare heart rate (HR) and heart rate variability (HRV) metrics as markers of autonomic function after ablation using PFA vs thermal ablation. METHODS: ADVENT (FARAPULSE ADVENT PIVOTAL Trial PFA System vs SOC Ablation for Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation) was a randomized pivotal study comparing PFA (pentaspline catheter) with thermal ablation (radiofrequency [RF] or cryoballoon [CB]) for treating paroxysmal AF. Baseline HR was acquired from a pre-ablation 12-lead electrocardiogram, whereas follow-up HRs, as well as HRV (standard deviation of all normal to normal RR intervals, standard deviation of 5-minute average RR intervals) metrics, were derived from 72-hour Holter monitors at 6 and 12 months. RESULTS: This study included 379 paroxysmal AF patients undergoing PFA (n = 194) or thermal ablation (n = 185; n = 102 RF, n = 83 CB) completing 6- and 12-month Holter monitoring. Compared with PFA, thermal patients had significantly greater increases in HR from baseline to 6 months (ΔHR; 10.1 vs 5.9 beats/min; P = 0.02) and 12 months (ΔHR; 8.8 vs 5.2 beats/min; P = 0.03). This increase in HR at 6 and 12 months was similar between CB and RF (P = 0.94 and 0.83, respectively). HRV, both standard deviation of all normal to normal RR intervals and standard deviation of 5-minute average RR intervals, were significantly lower at both 6 and 12 months after thermal ablation compared with PFA (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: PFA's effect on the autonomic nervous system was attenuated compared with thermal ablation. Whether this affects long-term freedom from AF or symptomatic bradycardia/pauses after AF ablation requires further study.

Recurrence After Atrial Fibrillation Ablation and Investigational Biomarkers of Cardiac Remodeling.

BACKGROUND: Recurrence after atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation remains common. We evaluated the association between recurrence and levels of biomarkers of cardiac remodeling, and their ability to improve recurrence prediction when added to a clinical prediction model. METHODS AND RESULTS: Blood samples collected before de novo catheter ablation were analyzed. Levels of bone morphogenetic protein-10, angiopoietin-2, fibroblast growth factor-23, insulin-like growth factor-binding protein-7, myosin-binding protein C3, growth differentiation factor-15, interleukin-6, N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide, and high-sensitivity troponin T were measured. Recurrence was defined as ≥30 seconds of an atrial arrhythmia 3 to 12 months postablation. Multivariable logistic regression was performed using biomarker levels along with clinical covariates: APPLE score (Age >65 years, Persistent AF, imPaired eGFR [<60 ml/min/1.73m2], LA diameter ≥43 mm, EF <50%; which includes age, left atrial diameter, left ventricular ejection fraction, persistent atrial fibrillation, and estimated glomerular filtration rate), preablation rhythm, sex, height, body mass index, presence of an implanted continuous monitor, year of ablation, and additional linear ablation. A total of 1873 participants were included. A multivariable logistic regression showed an association between recurrence and levels of angiopoietin-2 (odds ratio, 1.08 [95% CI, 1.02-1.15], P=0.007) and interleukin-6 (odds ratio, 1.02 [95% CI, 1.003-1.03]; P=0.02). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of a model that only contained clinical predictors was 0.711. The addition of any of the 9 studied biomarkers to the predictive model did not result in a statistically significant improvement in the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. CONCLUSIONS: Higher angiopoietin-2 and interleukin-6 levels were associated with recurrence after atrial fibrillation ablation in multivariable modeling. However, the addition of biomarkers to a clinical prediction model did not significantly improve recurrence prediction.

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: Current Advances and Remaining Challenges.

The field of left atrial appendage occlusion is rapidly evolving. However, several issues remain including the limited randomized efficacy data, peri-device leak, device-related thrombus, and the ongoing refinement of procedural techniques. In this article, we provide a contemporary overview of left atrial appendage occlusion focusing on 4 key remaining challenges: efficacy data, peri-device leak, device-related thrombus, and procedural optimization.