ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed at assessing the feasibility and long-term efficacy of left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) in a "real world" setting. BACKGROUND: Although LAAO has recently emerged as an alternative to oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation for the prevention of thromboembolic stroke, "real world" data about the procedure with different devices are lacking. METHODS: Eight centers in the United Kingdom contributed to a retrospective registry for LAAO procedures undertaken between July 2009 and November 2014. RESULTS: A total of 371 patients (72.9 ± 8.3 years old, 88.9% males) were enrolled. The overall procedure success was 92.5%, with major events in 3.5% of cases. The device choice was Watchman in 63% of cases, Amplatzer Cardiac Plug in 34.7%, Lariat in 1.7%, and Coherex WaveCrest in 0.6%. A significant improvement in procedure success (from 89.2% to 95.7%; P = 0.018) and reduction of acute major complications (from 6.5% to 0.5%; P = 0.001) were observed between procedures in the first and the second half of the recruitment time. An annual 90.1% relative risk reduction (RRR) for ischemic stroke, an 87.2% thromboembolic events RRR, and a 92.9% major bleeding RRR were observed, if compared with the predicted annual risks based on CHADS2, CHA2DS2-Vasc, and HAS-BLED scores, respectively, over a follow-up period of 24.7 ± 16.07 months. CONCLUSIONS: LAAO can be performed safely in a real world setting with good implant success rates and procedural outcomes. The long-term benefits of the procedure are reassuring in terms of both ischemic events and avoidance of severe bleeding associated with anticoagulation in this patient group. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Subject(s)
Atrial Appendage , Atrial Fibrillation/therapy , Cardiac Catheterization , Intracranial Embolism/prevention & control , Stroke/prevention & control , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Atrial Appendage/diagnostic imaging , Atrial Appendage/physiopathology , Atrial Fibrillation/complications , Atrial Fibrillation/diagnosis , Atrial Fibrillation/physiopathology , Cardiac Catheterization/adverse effects , Cardiac Catheterization/instrumentation , Cardiac Catheterization/methods , Feasibility Studies , Female , Humans , Intracranial Embolism/etiology , Male , Middle Aged , Registries , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , Stroke/etiology , Time Factors , Treatment Outcome , United StatesABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: The transradial approach limits vascular complications in coronary interventions. The same may be true for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). We present our experience using secondary transradial arterial access. METHODS: Secondary transradial arterial access has been our default strategy for TAVI since 2007. Procedural data is collected prospectively. We assessed procedural success and complications. RESULTS: Data from 282 patients aged 81±5.2 yrs was examined. Secondary arterial access was transradial (74%), femoral (24%) and none (2%). Secondary femoral access was reserved for failed radial access (3%), anatomical anomalies (4%), operator preference (7%), trial requirements (6%) or proctor preference (4%). The principal pathology was aortic stenosis (90.8%), aortic regurgitation (6.7%) or a combination (2.5%). CoreValve (91.4%), Edwards (7%) or Lotus valves (1.7%) were delivered via transfemoral (88.6%), direct aortic (5.3%), subclavian (3.9%) or transapical approaches (1.8%). Significant vascular complications occurred in 25 cases (9.4%), including surgical repair of a failed percutaneous closure device (n=16), ilio-femoral dissection (n=3), iliac perforations (n=3), plaque disruption (n=1) and false aneurysm (n=2), one of which was from the secondary femoral access site. There was no local vascular complication from the secondary radial site. CONCLUSIONS: The transradial secondary access route for TAVI is safe and effective. The transradial route may limit vascular access complications from secondary transfemoral access.
Subject(s)
Aortic Valve Stenosis/surgery , Radial Artery , Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement/methods , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Aortic Valve , Female , Femoral Artery , Humans , Male , Retrospective StudiesABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: With the increased application of structural heart intervention techniques, there is concern over increasing radiation dose, especially during lengthy procedures. METHODS: We compared data from 91 consecutive single-vessel percutaneous coronary interventions, 69 patent foramen ovale closures, 25 atrial septal defect closures, 49 percutaneous transluminal mitral valvuloplasties, 57 balloon aortic valvuloplasties, 53 trans-catheter aortic valve implantations (TAVI), 21 left atrial appendage occlusions and 7 MitraClip procedures. RESULTS: The following fluoroscopy times and dose-area product (median, interquartile range) were recorded: patent foramen ovale closure (7.8, 5.3-10.9 minutes; 16.9, 7.5-30.6 Gycm(2)), atrial septal defect closure (10.1, 7.3-13 minutes; 15.5, 11.6-30.5 Gycm(2)), percutaneous transluminal mitral valvuloplasty (14.3, 11.4-24.2 minutes; 37.4, 19.8-87.0 Gycm(2)), balloon aortic valvuloplasty (8.4, 5.2-13.2 minutes; 19.8, 10.2-30.0 Gycm(2)), Edwards Sapien TAVI (24.0, 19.3-34.4 minutes; 86.4, 64.0-111.4 Gycm(2)), Medtronic CoreValve TAVI (19.4, 15.0-26.0 minutes; 101.9, 52.6-143.2 Gycm(2)), left atrial appendage occlusion (18.5, 15.7-29.1 minutes; 84.1, 36.4-140.0 Gycm(2)), Mitraclip procedures (37.2, 14.2-59.9 minutes; 89.1, 26.2-118.7 Gycm(2)), coronary angiography and single vessel percutaneous coronary intervention (6.6, 5.1-11.0 minutes; 62.5, 37.0-95.8 Gycm(2)). CONCLUSION: For structural heart interventions, dose-area product was not significantly greater than for coronary angiography with single-vessel percutaneous coronary artery intervention. This should be reassuring to patients and staff attending prolonged structural heart interventions.
