Clinical benefit of left atrial appendage closure in octogenarians.

OBJECTIVES: Whether left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) in octogenarians yield similar net clinical benefit compared to younger patients, was the purpose of the present study. METHODS: Two real-world LAAC registries, enrolling 744 consecutive Amplatzer and Watchman patients from 2009 to 2018, were retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: All events are reported per 100 patient-years. Two hundred and sixty one octogenarians and 483 non-octogenarians with a mean follow-up of 1.7 ± 1.3 and 2.3 ± 1.6 years, and a total of 1,502 patient-years were included. Octogenarians had a higher risk for stroke (CHA2DS2-VASc score: 5.2 ± 1.2 vs. 4.3 ± 1.7, P < 0.0001) and bleeding (HAS-BLED score: 3.3 ± 0.8 vs. 3.1 ± 1.1, P = 0.001). The combined safety endpoint of major periprocedural complications and major bleeding events at follow-up was comparable (30/446, 6.7% vs. 47/1056, 4.4%; hazard ratio [HR] = 1.2; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.73-1.98;P = 0.48) between the groups. The efficacy endpoint of all-cause stroke, systemic embolism, and cardiovascular/unexplained death occurred more often in octogenarians (61/446, 13.7% vs. 80/1056, 7.6%; HR = 7.0; 95% CI: 4.53-10.93;P < 0.0001). Overall, octogenarians had a lower net clinical benefit, i.e., the composite of all above mentioned hazards, from LAAC compared to younger patients (82/446, 18.4% vs. 116/1056, 11.0%; HR = 4.6; 95% CI: 3.11-7.0;P < 0.0001). Compared to the anticipated stroke rate, the observed rate decreased by 41% in octogenarians and 53% in non-octogenarians. The observed bleeding rate was reduced by 10% octogenarians and 41% non-octogenarians. CONCLUSIONS: LAAC can be performed with similar safety in octogenarians as compared to younger patients. On the long-term, it both reduces stroke and bleeding events, although to a lesser extent than in non-octogenarians.

Impact of Echocardiographic Guidance on Safety and Efficacy of Left Atrial Appendage Closure: An Observational Study.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of echocardiographic guidance on the safety and efficacy of left atrial appendage closure (LAAC). BACKGROUND: Expert consensus documents recommend intraprocedural imaging by means of either transesophageal echocardiography or intracardiac echocardiography to guide LAAC. However, no evidence exists that intraprocedural echocardiographic guidance in addition to fluoroscopy improves the safety and efficacy of LAAC. METHODS: Consecutive LAAC procedures performed at a high-volume center between January 2009 and October 2020 were stratified on the basis of intraprocedural imaging modalities, including fluoroscopic guidance (FG) only or intraprocedural echocardiographic guidance (EG) in addition to fluoroscopy. The primary safety endpoint was the composite of procedure-related complications occurring within 7 days after the procedure. Technical success at 7 days and at follow-up were secondary endpoints. RESULTS: Among 811 LAAC procedures, 549 (67.7%) and 262 (32.3%) were assigned to the FG and EG groups, respectively. After adjusting for confounders, EG remained associated with a lower rate of the primary safety endpoint (3.4% vs 9.1%; P = 0.004; adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 0.31; 95% CI: 0.11-0.90; P = 0.030). Technical success trended higher at 7 days (92.1% vs 87.2%; P = 0.065; adjusted OR: 1.68; 95% CI: 0.95-3.01; P = 0.079) and was significantly improved with EG compared with FG (87.6% vs 79.9%; P = 0.018; OR: 4.06; 95% CI: 1.60-10.27; P = 0.003) after a median follow-up period of 4.9 months (interquartile range: 3.4 months-6.2 months). CONCLUSIONS: In a large cohort of consecutive LAACs, the use of intraprocedural echocardiography to guide intervention in addition to standard fluoroscopy was associated with lower risks for procedural complications and higher mid-term technical success rates.

Clinical outcomes of Watchman vs. Amplatzer occluders for left atrial appendage closure (WATCH at LAAC).

AIMS: This study compares clinical outcomes of Watchman vs. Amplatzer devices for left atrial appendage closure (LAAC). METHODS AND RESULTS: Of two real-world registries, the Watchman registry Lichtenfels, Germany, and the Amplatzer registry Bern-Zurich, Switzerland, 303 and 333 consecutive patients, respectively, were included. After a 1:1 propensity score matching, 266 vs. 266 patients were compared by use of the predefined primary efficacy endpoint of stroke, systemic embolism and cardiovascular/unexplained death, the primary safety endpoint of major peri-procedural complications and major bleeding events at follow-up, and the combined hazard endpoint, a composite of all above-mentioned hazards. Mean age was 75.3 ± 7.8 (Watchman) vs. 75.1 ± 9.9 (Amplatzer) years, CHA2DS2-VASc score 4.5 ± 1.7 vs. 4.5 ± 1.5, and HAS-BLED score 3.2 ± 1.0 vs. 3.2 ± 1.0. At a mean follow-up of 2.4 ± 1.3 vs. 2.5 ± 1.5 years and 1.322 patient-years, the primary endpoints of efficacy [40/646, 6.2% [Watchman] vs. 43/676, 6.4% [Amplatzer]; hazard ratio (HR), 1.02; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.66-1.58; P = 0.92] and safety (33/646, 5.1% vs. 30/676, 4.4%; HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.29-1.11; P = 0.10), as well as the combined hazard endpoint (69/646, 10.7% vs. 66/676, 9.8%; HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.55-1.12; P = 0.26) were similar for both groups. CONCLUSION: This study suggests comparable efficacy and safety of the Watchman and Amplatzer devices.

Transseptal puncture versus patent foramen ovale or atrial septal defect access for left atrial appendage closure.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to compare the periprocedural and late clinical outcomes of left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) with AMPLATZER devices by access through transseptal puncture (TSP) versus a patent foramen ovale (PFO) or an atrial septal defect (ASD). METHODS AND RESULTS: Between 2009 and 2018, 578 consecutive patients underwent LAAC via TSP or PFO/ASD access in three centres. After a 3:1 propensity score matching, 246 (TSP) versus 91 (PFO/ASD) patients were compared using the primary efficacy endpoint of all-cause stroke, systemic embolism and cardiovascular/unexplained death and the primary safety endpoint of major periprocedural complications and major bleedings at follow-up. Mean age was 75.2±8.7 (TSP) vs 74.4±10.9 (PFO/ASD) years, CHA2DS2-VASc score 4.5±1.6 vs 4.3±1.4 and HAS-BLED score 3.3±1.0 vs 3.3±0.9. Device success (97.6% vs 97.8%, p=0.90) was similar. After 2.5±1.4 vs 2.6±1.6 years, clinical efficacy (46/603, 7.6% [TSP] vs 21/233, 9.0% [PFO/ASD], hazard ratio [HR] 1.2; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.69-0.85, p=0.54) and safety (24/603, 4.0% vs 11/233, 4.7%; HR 1.4; 95% CI: 0.52-3.6, p=0.49) did not differ. CONCLUSIONS: Use of a PFO/ASD access for LAAC with AMPLATZER devices offers similar periprocedural and late clinical outcomes to TSP. Simultaneous PFO/ASD closure for an additional protective benefit does not increase risk.