Search

Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) is a crucial intervention for stroke prevention in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation who are unsuitable for long-term anticoagulation. Amulet and Watchman are the most implanted devices worldwide for performing LAAC, and the aim of this review is to provide a comprehensive comparison focusing on their efficacy, safety, and short- and long-term outcomes. The Watchman device, the first to gain FDA approval, has been extensively studied and demonstrates significant reductions in stroke and systemic embolism rates. The Amulet device, a newer alternative, promises enhanced design features for more efficient appendage sealing. Current data highlight that both devices offer similar efficacy and safety for LAAC. While the two devices differ in terms of intraprocedural complication rates, they offer similar short- to long-term outcomes in terms of peri-device leaks, device-related thrombosis, and mortality. Both devices are indicated for patients who are unable to tolerate OAC, given their similar risk and safety profiles. Newer clinical studies are directed at establishing the efficacy of both devices as the primary method for stroke prevention in AF as an alternative to OAC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Concomitant mitral transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (M-TEER) and left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) showed to be a feasible approach to optimize the treatment of patients eligible for both procedures, but mid-term outcomes are unclear. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed consecutive patients undergoing M-TEER and enrolled in the local prospective Getting Reduction of Mitral Insufficiency by Percutaneous Clip Implantation (GRASP) registry. We compared patients undergoing isolated M-TEER (n = 58, 58.5%) with those undergoing concomitant M-TEER and LAAC (n = 41, 41.5%) from January 2018 to December 2022. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death, stroke or systemic embolism, hospitalization for heart failure, and bleeding at 1 year. The co-primary endpoint was procedural success. Results: The primary endpoint was similar between patients undergoing concomitant M-TEER+LAAC or isolated M-TEER (Kaplan Meier (KM) estimates 36.6% vs. 44.8%; plog-rank = 0.75). Procedural success was also similar (92.7% vs. 94.8%; p = 0.69). At 1- year, minor bleeds were lower in patients undergoing concomitant M-TEER and LAAC (KM estimates 0.0% vs. 18.9%; plog-rank < 0.01). Conclusion: In patients with concomitant MR and AF and eligible for M-TEER and LAAC treatment, a combined approach of M-TEER and LAAC was as safe as an M-TEER-alone strategy and associated with lower minor bleeding at 1 year. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]