Search

Background: Left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) provides mechanical cardioembolic protection for atrial fibrillation (AF) patients who cannot use oral anticoagulation therapy (OAT). Patients with a thrombotic event despite OAT are at high risk for recurrence and may also benefit from LAAO., Objectives: This study sought to investigate the efficacy of LAAO in AF patients with a thrombotic event on OAT compared to: 1) LAAO in AF patients with a contraindication for OAT; and 2) historical data., Methods: The international LAAO after stroke despite oral anticoagulation (STR-OAC LAAO) collaboration included patients who underwent LAAO because of thrombotic events on OAT. This cohort underwent propensity score matching and was compared to the EWOLUTION (Evaluating Real-Life Clinical Outcomes in Atrial Fibrillation Patients Receiving the WATCHMAN Left Atrial Appendage Closure Technology) registry, which represents patients who underwent LAAO because of OAT contraindications. The primary outcome was ischemic stroke. Event rates were compared between cohorts and with historical data without OAT, yielding relative risk reductions based on risk scores., Results: Analysis of 438 matched pairs revealed no significant difference in the ischemic stroke rate between the STR-OAC LAAO and EWOLUTION cohorts (2.5% vs 1.9%; HR: 1.37; 95% CI: 0.72-2.61). STR-OAC LAAO patients exhibited a higher thromboembolic risk (HR: 1.71; 95% CI: 1.04-2.83) but lower bleeding risk (HR: 0.39; 95% CI: 0.18-0.88) compared to EWOLUTION patients. The mortality rate was slightly higher in EWOLUTION (4.3% vs 6.9%; log-rank P = 0.028). Relative risk reductions for ischemic stroke were 70% and 78% in STR-OAC LAAO and EWOLUTION, respectively, compared to historical data without OAT., Conclusions: LAAO in patients with a thrombotic event on OAT demonstrated comparable stroke rates to the OAT contraindicated population in EWOLUTION. The thromboembolic event rate was higher and the bleeding rate lower, reflecting the intrinsically different risk profile of both populations. Until randomized trials are available, LAAO may be considered in patients with an ischemic event on OAT., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Maarse has received an educational grant from Boston Scientific. Dr Tondo serves on the advisory board of Boston Scientific; and has received lecture and tutoring fees from Boston Scientific and Abbott Medical. Dr Demkow has received proctoring fees from Boston Scientific and Abbott. Dr de Backer has received institutional research grants and consulting fees from Abbott and Boston Scientific. Dr Nielsen-Kudsk has received grants from Abbott and Boston Scientific. Dr Estevez-Loureiro is a proctor for Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, and Lifetech. Dr de Prado is a proctor for Boston Scientific. Dr Nombela-Franco is a proctor for Abbott Vascular, Edwards Lifesciences, and Boston Scientific. Dr Salinas is a proctor for Abbott Vascular. Dr Berti is a proctor for Edwards Lifesciences, Boston Scientific, and Abbott. Dr Millan has received consultant fees/honoraria from Abbott Laboratories and Boston Scientific. Dr Arzamendi has received consultant fees/honoraria from Abbott Laboratories and Boston Scientific. Dr Agarwal is a member of the Speaker Bureau and proctor for Medtronics, Abbott, Edwards Lifesciences, and Boston Scientific. Dr Spoon is a speaker for Medtronic, Abiomed, and Abbott. Dr El-Chami is a consultant for Medtronic and Boston Scientific. Dr Adamo has received speaker honoraria from Abbott Structural Heart. Dr van Dijk is a proctor for Boston Scientific. Dr Swaans is a proctor/lecturer for Abbott Vacular, Bioventrix Inc, Boston Scientific, Cardiac Dimensions, Edwards Lifesciences, GE Healthcare, and Philips Healthcare. Dr Vireca is an employee of Boston Scientific. Dr Bergmann has received speaker honoraria from Boston Scientific and Abbott; and has received research support from Boston Scientific and Abbott. Dr Boersma is a consultant for Boston Scientific; and is a proctor for Abbott. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In REDUCE LAP-HF II (A Study to Evaluate the Corvia Medical, Inc IASD System II to Reduce Elevated Left Atrial Pressure in Patients With Heart Failure), implantation of an atrial shunt device did not provide overall clinical benefit for patients with heart failure with preserved or mildly reduced ejection fraction. However, prespecified analyses identified differences in response in subgroups defined by pulmonary artery systolic pressure during submaximal exercise, right atrial volume, and sex. Shunt implantation reduces left atrial pressures but increases pulmonary blood flow, which may be poorly tolerated in patients with pulmonary vascular disease (PVD). On the basis of these results, we hypothesized that patients with latent PVD, defined as elevated pulmonary vascular resistance during exercise, might be harmed by shunt implantation, and conversely that patients without PVD might benefit., Methods: REDUCE LAP-HF II enrolled 626 patients with heart failure, ejection fraction ≥40%, exercise pulmonary capillary wedge pressure ≥25 mm Hg, and resting pulmonary vascular resistance <3.5 Wood units who were randomized 1:1 to atrial shunt device or sham control. The primary outcome-a hierarchical composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal ischemic stroke, recurrent HF events, and change in health status-was analyzed using the win ratio. Latent PVD was defined as pulmonary vascular resistance ≥1.74 Wood units (highest tertile) at peak exercise, measured before randomization., Results: Compared with patients without PVD (n=382), those with latent PVD (n=188) were older, had more atrial fibrillation and right heart dysfunction, and were more likely to have elevated left atrial pressure at rest. Shunt treatment was associated with worse outcomes in patients with PVD (win ratio, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.42, 0.86]; P =0.005) and signal of clinical benefit in patients without PVD (win ratio, 1.31 [95% CI, 1.02, 1.68]; P =0.038). Patients with larger right atrial volumes and men had worse outcomes with the device and both groups were more likely to have pacemakers, heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction, and increased left atrial volume. For patients without latent PVD or pacemaker (n=313; 50% of randomized patients), shunt treatment resulted in more robust signal of clinical benefit (win ratio, 1.51 [95% CI, 1.14, 2.00]; P =0.004)., Conclusions: In patients with heart failure with preserved or mildly reduced ejection fraction, the presence of latent PVD uncovered by invasive hemodynamic exercise testing identifies patients who may worsen with atrial shunt therapy, whereas those without latent PVD may benefit.

Background: Device-related thrombus (DRT) has been considered an Achilles' heel of left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO). However, data on DRT prediction remain limited., Objectives: This study constructed a DRT registry via a multicenter collaboration aimed to assess outcomes and predictors of DRT., Methods: Thirty-seven international centers contributed LAAO cases with and without DRT (device-matched and temporally related to the DRT cases). This study described the management patterns and mid-term outcomes of DRT and assessed patient and procedural predictors of DRT., Results: A total of 711 patients (237 with and 474 without DRT) were included. Follow-up duration was similar in the DRT and no-DRT groups, median 1.8 years (interquartile range: 0.9-3.0 years) versus 1.6 years (interquartile range: 1.0-2.9 years), respectively (P = 0.76). DRTs were detected between days 0 to 45, 45 to 180, 180 to 365, and >365 in 24.9%, 38.8%, 16.0%, and 20.3% of patients. DRT presence was associated with a higher risk of the composite endpoint of death, ischemic stroke, or systemic embolization (HR: 2.37; 95% CI, 1.58-3.56; P < 0.001) driven by ischemic stroke (HR: 3.49; 95% CI: 1.35-9.00; P = 0.01). At last known follow-up, 25.3% of patients had DRT. Discharge medications after LAAO did not have an impact on DRT. Multivariable analysis identified 5 DRT risk factors: hypercoagulability disorder (odds ratio [OR]: 17.50; 95% CI: 3.39-90.45), pericardial effusion (OR: 13.45; 95% CI: 1.46-123.52), renal insufficiency (OR: 4.02; 95% CI: 1.22-13.25), implantation depth >10 mm from the pulmonary vein limbus (OR: 2.41; 95% CI: 1.57-3.69), and non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (OR: 1.90; 95% CI: 1.22-2.97). Following conversion to risk factor points, patients with ≥2 risk points for DRT had a 2.1-fold increased risk of DRT compared with those without any risk factors., Conclusions: DRT after LAAO is associated with ischemic events. Patient- and procedure-specific factors are associated with the risk of DRT and may aid in risk stratification of patients referred for LAAO., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Maarse has received an unrestricted grant from Boston Scientific. Dr Pérez de Prado has served as a proctor for Boston Scientific. Dr Gupta has served as a proctor for Abbott. Dr Sanchez has served as a speaker and proctor for Boston Scientific. Dr Demkow has served as a proctor for Abbott and Boston Scientific. Dr Alkhouli has served as a consultant for Boston Scientific. Dr Wang has been a consultant for Edwards LifeSciences, Boston Scientific, and Neochord; and has received research grant support from Boston Scientific assigned to employer Henry Ford health system. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: In this propensity-matched analysis of post-left atrial appendage closure antithrombotic therapy, the safety and effectiveness of oral anticoagulation (OAC) and antiplatelet therapy (APT) were compared., Background: Left atrial appendage closure with the WATCHMAN device is an alternative to OAC in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, who are at high bleeding risk. Initial trials included 45 days of post-implantation OAC, but registry data suggest that APT may suffice., Methods: Patients from the PROTECT-AF (Watchman Left Atrial Appendage System for Embolic Protection in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation), PREVAIL (Watchman LAA Closure Device in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Versus Long Term Warfarin Therapy), CAP (Continued Access to PROTECT-AF), CAP2 (Continued Access to PREVAIL), ASAP (ASA Plavix Feasibility Study With Watchman Left Atrial Appendage Closure Technology), and EWOLUTION (Registry on WATCHMAN Outcomes in Real-Life Utilization) trials receiving either OAC or APT post-implantation were matched and compared for nonprocedural bleeding and stroke or systemic thromboembolism over 6 months following implantation. Each patient on APT was matched with 2 patients on OAC, with propensity scores derived from age, sex, congestive heart failure, hypertension, diabetes, prior transient ischemic attack or stroke, peripheral vascular disease, left ventricular ejection fraction, renal impairment, and different atrial fibrillation subtypes., Results: The cohort on OAC (n = 1,018; 95% receiving warfarin and 5% receiving nonwarfarin OAC) was prescribed 45-day OAC post-implantation (92% also received single APT), followed by 6-month single or dual APT. The cohort on APT (n = 509; 91% receiving dual APT and 9% receiving single APT) received APT for variable durations. Six-month freedom from nonprocedural major bleeding was similar (OAC, 95.7%; APT, 95.5%; p = 0.775) despite more early bleeds with OAC. Freedom from thromboembolism beyond 7 days was similar between groups (OAC, 98.8%; APT, 99.4%; p = 0.089). However, device-related thrombosis was more frequent with APT (OAC, 1.4%; APT, 3.1%; p = 0.018)., Conclusions: After left atrial appendage closure with the WATCHMAN, although device-related thrombosis was more common with APT, both APT and OAC strategies resulted in similar safety and efficacy endpoints., (Copyright © 2019 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

NOAC therapy has become the standard for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation. Yet some patients suffer extracranial bleeding events or have other reasons to seek non-pharmacologic stroke protection. LAA occlusion with the WATCHMAN device has been proven safe and effective for such patients and is now recommended in current guidelines for this patient group; other devices also seek approval., (Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained cardiac arrhythmia and the rate of ischemic stroke attributed to non-valvular AF is estimated at 5% per year. Several multi-center studies established left atrial appendage closure as a safe and effective alternative to oral anticoagulation, but there is a need for additional real world data., Methods: The purpose of this observational, prospective, single-arm, multicenter clinical study is to compile real-world clinical outcome data for WATCHMAN™ LAA (left atrial appendage) Closure Technology. One thousand subjects at up to 70 institutions in Europe, the Middle East, and Russia will be enrolled. Patients will be followed for 2 years after WATCHMAN implantation, according to standard medical practice. Primary endpoints include procedural and long-term data including stroke/embolism, bleeding, and death. This article presents the background of the LAAC device and describes the design of the study., Results: Results for peri-procedural analyses are expected toward the end of 2015; long-term follow-up data are expected in the latter half of 2017., Conclusion: The EWOLUTION study will formally expand knowledge of LAA closure into a broader real world setting. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc., (© 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Aims: Left main interventions require optimal initial results for good clinical outcome. Lesion preparation with the AngioSculpt Scoring Balloon (ASB) combined with the provisional T-stenting technique, if proven safe, might lead to better lumen gain and better clinical outcome. The aim of this registry was to investigate the safety and efficacy of the ASB as an option for lesion preparation in unprotected left main interventions (ULMI)., Methods and Results: Out of the all-comers unprotected left main registry (ULMI ALSTER), 47 patients with elective ULMI fulfilled the inclusion criteria for this study. The endpoints were acute lumen gain and 12-month MACCE. The drop-out rate was 4%. The provisional T-stenting technique was used in 97% of distal ULMI. The interventions were grouped according to use of ASB with an in-house, historical no-ASB patient control group. Lumen gain was 1.63±0.12 mm in the ASB group (n=34) and 1.35±0.12 mm in the no-ASB group (n=8, p=0.26), respectively. The use of the ASB was safe. Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) data for 21 patients showed numerically greater lumen area gain of 3.14±0.33 mm2 in the ASB group compared to 2.33±0.88 mm2 with the conventional technique. TLR/TVR was 6.6% overall. Twelve-month MACCE was 12.5% (4/32) for ASB and 15.4% (2/13) in the historical control group., Conclusions: Adding ASB lesion preparation to the standard provisional T-stenting technique for ULMI is feasible and safe. Low TLR and TVR rates were observed. Lesion preparation led to a numerically larger lumen gain; the data allow valid power statistics to show this approach as leading to improved outcome in a possible randomised trial.