Intracardiac Versus Transesophageal Echocardiographic Guidance for Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion: The LAAO Italian Multicenter Registry.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of intracardiac echocardiography (ICE)-guided versus transesophageal echocardiography (TEE)-guided left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) by the use of Amplatzer Cardiac Plug or Amulet devices included in a large Italian registry. BACKGROUND: TEE is widely used for LAAO procedure guidance. ICE may be a potential alternative imaging modality in LAAO. METHODS: Data from 604 LAAO procedures performed in 16 Italian centers were reviewed. ICE-guided LAAO was performed in 187 patients, whereas TEE was used in 417 patients. Procedural success was defined as LAAO without occurrence of pericardial tamponade, stroke, systemic embolism with end organ damage, major bleeding, and device embolization. Stroke, transient ischemic attack, major bleeding, overall and cardiovascular death were analyzed. RESULTS: CHA2DS2-VASc (congestive heart failure, hypertension, age ≥75 years, diabetes mellitus, prior stroke or transient ischemic attack or thromboembolism, vascular disease, age 65 to 74 years, sex category) and HAS-BLED (hypertension, abnormal renal and liver function, stroke, bleeding, labile international normalized ratio, elderly, drugs or alcohol) scores were similar between the ICE and TEE groups. TEE implied lower procedural (delta 12 min) and fluoroscopy time (delta 5 min) when compared with ICE. Procedural success was similarly high (≥94%) between the TEE and ICE groups with a complication rate of 6.5% for TEE versus 4.2% for ICE (odds ratio: 1.468; 95% confidence interval: 0.681 to 3.166; p = 0.327). At median follow-up of 451 days (interquartile range: 162 to 899 days), the rate of cerebral ischemic events was similar between TEE-guided and ICE-guided procedures. CONCLUSIONS: ICE-guided LAAO by means of Amplatzer devices may represent a second alternative imaging modality after an appropriate learning curve and bearing in mind that pre-procedural computed tomography imaging is mandatory. When comparing ICE with TEE, TEE remains the gold standard.

Left atrial appendage closure using AMPLATZER™ devices: A large, multicenter, Italian registry.

BACKGROUND: Left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) has been proven to be effective for stroke prophylaxis in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). We aim to assess the safety and efficacy of LAAO by AMPLATZER™ devices in a large, multicenter, single-nation cohort of NVAF patients at high-risk of stroke and bleeding. METHODS: From December 2008 to April 2015 613 NVAF patients (75.1±8.0years, 62.5% male) underwent LAAO in 15 Italian centers by AMPLATZER™ devices. There were no restrictions on any personal/institutional protocols with respect to indications, pre-procedural planning, device implantation, drug therapy and follow-up. All the baseline characteristics, imaging, procedural and follow-up data were collected in a single dataset. RESULTS: AMPLATZER™ devices were successfully implanted in 95.4% of cases. Major complications occurred during 38 procedures (6.2%) and included more frequently major bleeding (3.3%) and pericardial tamponade (2.0%). At a mean follow-up of 20months, the overall annual rates of stroke and thromboembolic events, including those periprocedural, was 1.67% and 2.90%, respectively, consisting in a reduction in the rate of stroke and TIA of 66% compared with the risk-based expectation. Among the 218 patients undergoing transesophageal echocardiography at 6months of follow-up, device thrombosis was present in 1.8% of the patients whilst a significant or mild to moderate peri-device leak was found in 0.5% and 11.9% of cases, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In this large, multicenter, single-nation study, LAAO with the AMPLATZER™ devices showed high procedural success, early safety and mid-term efficacy for the prevention of NVAF-related thromboembolism.