Current State of Left Atrial Appendage Closure.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Atrial fibrillation (AF), the most common sustained arrhythmia, is a major cause of stroke and systemic embolism, and is increasing in prevalence. Device closure of the left atrial appendage (LAA) represents a non-pharmacologic approach to stroke prevention in AF patients. This review presents the rationale for LAA closure (LAAC), describes current transcatheter approaches to LAAC, and summarizes the current evidence for LAAC for stroke prevention, highlighting the main randomized trials and the most recent data available. RECENT FINDINGS: Meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials demonstrates similar rates of all-cause stroke with transcatheter LAAC compared with vitamin K antagonist therapy and significantly less bleeding with LAAC after cessation of mandated post-procedure pharmacology. Recent prospective observational studies, including those evaluating outcomes after commercial approval in the USA, show significantly improved procedure safety compared with earlier experiences. LAAC appears to be an attractive alternative strategy for stroke prevention in AF patients, particularly in those who can take short-term oral anticoagulation (OAC), but are not optimal candidates for long-term OAC. Recent data suggests the procedure can be safely performed in patients with contraindications to OAC. Further, robust studies are needed to evaluate safety and efficacy in OAC-contraindicated patients, to compare outcomes with non-vitamin K antagonist OACs, and to explore the relative safety and efficacy of different LAAC devices.

Artificial intelligence coronary computed tomography, coronary computed tomography angiography using fractional flow reserve, and physician visual interpretation in the per-vessel prediction of abnormal invasive adenosine fractional flow reserve.

Aims: A comparison of diagnostic performance comparing AI-QCTISCHEMIA, coronary computed tomography angiography using fractional flow reserve (CT-FFR), and physician visual interpretation on the prediction of invasive adenosine FFR have not been evaluated. Furthermore, the coronary plaque characteristics impacting these tests have not been assessed. Methods and results: In a single centre, 43-month retrospective review of 442 patients referred for coronary computed tomography angiography and CT-FFR, 44 patients with CT-FFR had 54 vessels assessed using intracoronary adenosine FFR within 60 days. A comparison of the diagnostic performance among these three techniques for the prediction of FFR ≤ 0.80 was reported. The mean age of the study population was 65 years, 76.9% were male, and the median coronary artery calcium was 654. When analysing the per-vessel ischaemia prediction, AI-QCTISCHEMIA had greater specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), diagnostic accuracy, and area under the curve (AUC) vs. CT-FFR and physician visual interpretation CAD-RADS. The AUC for AI-QCTISCHEMIA was 0.91 vs. 0.76 for CT-FFR and 0.62 for CAD-RADS ≥ 3. Plaque characteristics that were different in false positive vs. true positive cases for AI-QCTISCHEMIA were max stenosis diameter % (54% vs. 67%, P < 0.01); for CT-FFR were maximum stenosis diameter % (40% vs. 65%, P < 0.001), total non-calcified plaque (9% vs. 13%, P < 0.01); and for physician visual interpretation CAD-RADS ≥ 3 were total non-calcified plaque (8% vs. 12%, P < 0.01), lumen volume (681 vs. 510 mm3, P = 0.02), maximum stenosis diameter % (40% vs. 62%, P < 0.001), total plaque (19% vs. 33%, P = 0.002), and total calcified plaque (11% vs. 22%, P = 0.003). Conclusion: Regarding per-vessel prediction of FFR ≤ 0.8, AI-QCTISCHEMIA revealed greater specificity, PPV, accuracy, and AUC vs. CT-FFR and physician visual interpretation CAD-RADS ≥ 3.