ABSTRACT
Background: Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) is considered a valid alternative for the prevention of thromboembolic stroke in patients with persistent left atrial appendage thrombus (LAAT) despite adequate anticoagulation. However, the data on LAAC using the LAmbre device for patients with LAAT is limited. This study was performed to explore efficacy and safety as well as to share the experience of the modified LAAC procedure with the LAmbre device. Materials and methods: A total of 7 patients with persistent LAAT despite adequate anticoagulation underwent modified LAAC with the LAmbre device between November 2019 and April 2022. Transesophageal echocardiography was performed 3 months postoperatively to detect device-related thrombosis and peridevice leak. The patients' clinical events were evaluated during the perioperative and follow-up periods. Results: The median age, CHA2DS2-VASc score, and HAS-BLED score of all patients were 71 [53-73], 3 [2-4], and 2 [2-3], respectively. In the procedure, a cerebral protection system was used in two patients. LAAC with the LAmbre device was successfully performed in all patients without perioperative events. During the median follow-up of 383 [325-865] days, postoperative transesophageal echocardiography was performed in six (85.7%) patients. Device-related thrombosis was detected in one (16.7%) patient, and no significant peridevice leak was observed. No thromboembolic event or bleeding event occurred in any patients. Conclusion: LAAC with the LAmbre device is effective and safe when performed by experienced operators in highly selected patients with LAAT after adequate anticoagulation.
ABSTRACT
Background: Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) combined with radiofrequency catheter ablation is an emerging one-stop hybrid procedure for non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF). This study was performed to compare the efficacy and safety of the Watchman device vs. the LAmbre device for this combined procedure. Methods: Two hundred and thirty two patients with AF who underwent the combined procedure were enrolled and divided into two subgroups depending on the device choice: the Watchman-combined group (n = 118) and the LAmbre-combined group (n = 114). The periprocedural and follow-up adverse events in both groups were documented. Results: The mean CHA2DS2-VASc score and HAS-BLED score in the Watchman-combined group and LAmbre-combined group were 3.7 ± 1.5 vs. 3.8 ± 1.5 and 2.5 ± 1.1 vs. 2.3 ± 1.1, respectively (all P > 0.05). Successful LAAC was achieved in all patients. The rate of major periprocedural complications and AF recurrence at 6 months post-procedure were similar between the Watchman-combined group and LAmbre-combined group (0.8 vs. 0.9%, P = 1.00; 22.0 vs. 15.8%, P = 0.23). During 2.6 ±0 .7 vs.1.6 ± 1.6 years follow-up, the rate of major clinical adverse events, including stroke and major bleeding, were comparable between the Watchman-combined group and the LAmbre-combined group (2.6 vs. 1.1% per 100 patient-years, P = 0.33). The intraprocedural peri-device leakage (PDL) rate was similar between the Watchman-combined group and the LAmbre-combined group (5.1 vs. 6.1%, P = 0.73), but the PDL rate was significantly higher at 3-6 months transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) follow-up than the intraprocedural PDL rate in both groups (21.6 vs. 5.1%; 36.6 vs. 6.1%, respectively), with a more obvious increase in minimal PDL rate in the LAmbre-combined group than the Watchman-combined group (36.6 vs. 21.6%, P < 0.05). Conclusion: The Watchman and LAmbre devices were comparable in efficacy and safety for the combined procedure. The minimal PDL rate at short-term TEE follow-up was higher in the LAmbre-combined group than the Watchman-combined group.
