Comparison between Amulet and Watchman left atrial appendage closure devices: A real-world, single center experience

Objectives To compare the Watchman™ versus Amulet™ left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) devices in a consecutive, industry-independent registry. Background Data reporting a head-to-head comparison between Amulet and Watchman devices are scarce. Methods Patients who underwent LAAC using Watchman or Amulet devices from January 2014 to December 2019 at the University Heart Center Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany were included in the present analysis. Primary endpoints included periprocedural complications (in-hospital death, pericardial tamponade, device embolization, stroke, major bleeding and vascular access complications), and complications during 2-year-follow-up (ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, thromboembolism, device thrombus, bleeding and death). Results After matching the patients for age (± 5 years), gender, CHA2DS2Vasc score (± 1) and HASBLED score (± 1), each of the Watchman and the Amulet groups included 113 patients. Patients in the Amulet group had significantly more periprocedural complications (2.7% vs 10.6%, p = 0.029; respectively) and more major bleeding complications (0% vs 5.3%, p = 0.029; respectively). During 2-year follow-up, the rate of events was comparable between the Watchman and Amulet groups (18.3% versus 20.8%, p = 0.729; respectively). Conclusion Amulet LAAC device was associated with increased periprocedural complications as compared to Watchman LAAC device. On 2-year follow-up, both devices showed comparable efficacy and safety.