Pericardial Effusion After Left Atrial Appendage Closure: Timing, Predictors, and Clinical Impact.

BACKGROUND: Pericardial effusion (PE) is the most common serious left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) complication, but its mechanisms, time course, and prognostic impact are poorly understood. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to assess the frequency, timing, predictors and clinical impact of PE after LAAC. METHODS: Data on consecutive patients undergoing percutaneous LAAC between 2009 and 2022 were prospectively collected including the 1-year follow-up. Both single (Watchman 2.5/FLX, Boston Scientific) and double (Amplatzer Cardiac Plug or Amulet, St. Jude Medical/Abbott) LAAC devices were used. An imaging core laboratory adjudicated the PEs and categorized them as early (≤7 days) and late (8-365 days). Logistic regression analysis was used to identify predictors of early and overall PE. RESULTS: Of 1,023 attempted LAAC procedures, PE was observed in 44 (4.3%) patients; PE was categorized as early in 34 (3.3%) and late in 10 (0.9%) patients. The majority of PEs occurred within 6 hours after LAAC (n = 25, 56.8%) and were clinically relevant (n = 28, 63.6%). Independent predictors of early PE were double-closure left atrial appendage devices (adjusted OR: 8.20; 95% CI: 1.09-61.69), female sex (adjusted OR: 3.41; 95% CI: 1.50-7.73), the use of oral anticoagulation (OAC) at baseline (adjusted OR: 2.60; 95% CI: 1.11-6.09), and advanced age (adjusted OR: 1.07; 95% CI: 1.01-1.23), whereas female sex and OAC at baseline remained independent predictors of overall PE. CONCLUSIONS: In this large LAAC registry, PE was observed in <1 in 20 patients and usually occurred within 6 hours after procedure. The majority of early PEs were clinically relevant and occurred in the Amplatzer Cardiac Plug/Amulet procedures. Independent predictors included the use of double-closure devices, female sex, OAC at baseline, and advanced age. (LAAC-registry: Clinical Outcome After Echocardiography-guided LAA-closure; NCT04628078).

Embolization of percutaneous left atrial appendage closure devices: Timing, management and clinical outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Left atrial appendage (LAA) occluder embolization is an infrequent but serious complication. OBJECTIVES: We aim to describe timing, management and clinical outcomes of device embolization in a multi-center registry. METHODS: Patient characteristics, imaging findings and procedure and follow-up data were collected retrospectively. Device embolizations were categorized according to 1) timing 2) management and 3) clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Sixty-seven centers contributed data. Device embolization occurred in 108 patients. In 70.4 % of cases, it happened within the first 24 h of the procedure. The device was purposefully left in the LA and the aorta in two (1.9 %) patients, an initial percutaneous retrieval was attempted in 81 (75.0 %) and surgery without prior percutaneous retrieval attempt was performed in 23 (21.3 %) patients. Two patients died before a retrieval attempt could be made. In 28/81 (34.6 %) patients with an initial percutaneous retrieval attempt a second, additional attempt was performed, which was associated with a high mortality (death in patients with one attempt: 2.9 % vs. second attempt: 21.4 %, p < 0.001). The primary outcome (bailout surgery, cardiogenic shock, stroke, TIA, and/or death) occurred in 47 (43.5 %) patients. Other major complications related to device embolization occurred in 21 (19.4 %) patients. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of device embolizations after LAA closure occurs early. A percutaneous approach is often the preferred method for a first rescue attempt. Major adverse event rates, including death, are high particularly if the first retrieval attempt was unsuccessful. CONDENSED ABSTRACT: This dedicated multicenter registry examined timing, management, and clinical outcome of device embolization. Early embolization (70.4 %) was most frequent. As a first rescue attempt, percutaneous retrieval was preferred in 75.0 %, followed by surgical removal (21.3 %). In patients with a second retrieval attempt a higher mortality (death first attempt: 2.9 % vs. death second attempt: 24.1 %, p < 0.001) was observed. Mortality (10.2 %) and the major complication rate after device embolization were high.

Comparison of Mid-Term Prognosis in Intermediate-to-Low-Risk Contemporary Population with Guidelines-Oriented Age Cutoff.

BACKGROUND: Current European guidelines support transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in intermediate-to-low-risk patients ≥75 years-old, but its prognostic relevance is unknown. METHODS: Intermediate-to-low-risk (The Society of Thoracic Surgeons score <8%) patients enrolled in the HORSE registry were included. We compared the populations aged under 75 with those over 75. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. RESULTS: A total of 2685 patients were included: 280 (8.6%) < 75 and 2405 ≥ 75 years. Through a mean follow-up of 437 ± 381 days, 198 (8.2%) and 23 (8.2%) patients died in the two arms without statistically significant differences (log-rank p = 0.925). At Cox regression analysis, age did not predict the occurrence of all-cause death, neither as a continuous variable (HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.99-1.04, p = 0.294) nor dichotomizing according to the prespecified cutoff of 75 years (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.63-1.51, p = 0.924). Time-to-event ROC curves showed low accuracy of age to predict all-cause mortality (area under the curve of 0.54 for both 1-year and 2-year outcomes). CONCLUSIONS: TAVI has comparable benefits across age strata for intermediate-to-low-risk patients. The age cutoff suggested by the current guidelines is not predictive of the risk of adverse events during hospital stays or of all-cause mortality through a mid-term follow-up.

Quality and transparency of evidence for implantable cardiovascular medical devices assessed by the CORE-MD consortium.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The European Union Medical Device Regulation 2017/745 challenges key stakeholders to follow transparent and rigorous approaches to the clinical evaluation of medical devices. The purpose of this study is a systematic evaluation of published clinical evidence underlying selected high-risk cardiovascular medical devices before and after market access in the European Union (CE-marking) between 2000 and 2021. METHODS: Pre-specified strategies were applied to identify published studies of prospective design evaluating 71 high-risk cardiovascular devices in seven different classes (bioresorbable coronary scaffolds, left atrial appendage occlusion devices, transcatheter aortic valve implantation systems, transcatheter mitral valve repair/replacement systems, surgical aortic and mitral heart valves, leadless pacemakers, subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator). The search time span covered 20 years (2000-21). Details of study design, patient population, intervention(s), and primary outcome(s) were summarized and assessed with respect to timing of the corresponding CE-mark approval. RESULTS: At least one prospective clinical trial was identified for 70% (50/71) of the pre-specified devices. Overall, 473 reports of 308 prospectively designed studies (enrolling 97 886 individuals) were deemed eligible, including 81% (251/308) prospective non-randomized clinical trials (66 186 individuals) and 19% (57/308) randomized clinical trials (31 700 individuals). Pre-registration of the study protocol was available in 49% (150/308) studies, and 16% (48/308) had a peer-reviewed publicly available protocol. Device-related adverse events were evaluated in 82% (253/308) of studies. An outcome adjudication process was reported in 39% (120/308) of the studies. Sample size was larger for randomized in comparison to non-randomized trials (median of 304 vs. 100 individuals, P < .001). No randomized clinical trial published before CE-mark approval for any of the devices was identified. Non-randomized clinical trials were predominantly published after the corresponding CE-mark approval of the device under evaluation (89%, 224/251). Sample sizes were smaller for studies published before (median of 31 individuals) than after (median of 135 individuals) CE-mark approval (P < .001). Clinical trials with larger sample sizes (>50 individuals) and those with longer recruitment periods were more likely to be published after CE-mark approval, and were more frequent during the period 2016-21. CONCLUSIONS: The quantity and quality of publicly available data from prospective clinical investigations across selected categories of cardiovascular devices, before and after CE approval during the period 2000-21, were deemed insufficient. The majority of studies was non-randomized, with increased risk of bias, and performed in small populations without provision of power calculations, and none of the reviewed devices had randomized trial results published prior to CE-mark certification.

Atrial Fibrillation and Ischemic Stroke despite Oral Anticoagulation.

Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) experiencing ischemic stroke despite oral anticoagulation (OAC), i.e., breakthrough strokes, are not uncommon, and represent an important clinical subgroup in view of the consistently high risk of stroke recurrence and mortality. The understanding of the heterogenous potential mechanism underlying OAC failure is essential in order to implement specific therapeutic measures aimed at reducing the risk of recurrent ischemic stroke. However, due to the incomplete comprehension of this phenomenon and the limited available data, secondary stroke prevention in such high-risk patients represents a clinical dilemma. There are several available strategies to prevent ischemic stroke recurrence in AF patients with breakthrough stroke in the absence of competing causes unrelated to AF, and these include continuation or change in the type of OAC, addition of antiplatelet therapy, left atrial appendage closure, or any combination of the above options. However, due to the limited available data, the latest guidelines do not provide any specific recommendations about which of the above strategies may be preferred. This review describes the incidence, the clinical impact and the potential mechanisms underlying OAC failure in AF patients. Furthermore, the evidence supporting each of the above therapeutic options for secondary stroke prevention and the potential future directions will be discussed.

Computed Tomography Scan Evidence for Left Atrial Appendage Short-Term Remodeling Following Percutaneous Occlusion: Impact of Device Oversizing.

Background The interrelationships between left atrial appendage (LAA) dimensions and device following implantation are unknown. We aimed to analyze the impact of Watchman device implantation on LAA dimensions following its percutaneous closure and potential predictors of remodeling. Methods and Results All consecutive LAA closure procedures performed at 2 centers between November 2017 and December 2020 were included in the WATCH-DUAL (Watchman 2.5 Versus Watchman FLX in a Dual-Center Left Atrial Appendage Closure Cohort) registry. This study included patients who had pre- and postintervention computed tomography scan analysis. The LAA and device dimensions were measured in a centralized core lab by 3-dimensional computed tomography scan reconstruction methods, focusing on the device landing zone. This analysis included 104 patients (age, 76.0 [range, 72.0-83.0] years; 72% men; 53% Watchman FLX; 47% Watchman 2.5). The baseline characteristics were comparable between Watchman 2.5 and Watchman FLX groups, except for the higher use of oversizing in the latter group. The median delay for computed tomography control was 49 (range, 43-64) days. The landing zone area (median, 446 [range, 363-523] versus 290 [222-366] mm2; P<0.001) and minimal diameter (median, 23.0 [range, 20.7-24.8] versus 16.7 [14.7-19.4] mm; P<0.001) significantly increased after implantation. The absolute (median, 157 [range, 98-220] versus 85 [18-148] mm2, P<0.001) and relative (median, 50% [range, 32%-79%] versus 26% [4%-50%]; P<0.001) increases in landing zone area were more pronounced in patients with oversized device. Baseline LAA dimensions were smaller, landing zone eccentricity larger, and oversized device more frequent in patients with significant overexpansion compared with the others. Conclusions LAA dimensions increased at the site of the Watchman prosthesis after implantation, suggesting a local positive remodeling after the procedure. This phenomenon was more pronounced in the case of oversized devices.

Impact of Preprocedural Computed Tomography on Left Atrial Appendage Closure Success: A Swiss-Apero Trial Subanalysis.

BACKGROUND: The benefit related to the use of preprocedural computed tomography angiography (CCTA) on top of periprocedural echocardiography to plan percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) procedures is still unclear. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to evaluate the impact of preprocedural CCTA on LAAC procedural success. METHODS: In the investigator-initiated SWISS-APERO (Comparison of Amplatzer Amulet and Watchman Device in Patients Undergoing Left Atrial Appendage Closure) trial, patients undergoing echocardiography-guided LAAC were randomly assigned to receive the Amulet (Abbott) or Watchman 2.5/FLX (Boston Scientific) device across 8 European centers. According to the study protocol ongoing at the time of the procedure, the first operators had (CCTA unblinded group) or did not have (CCTA blinded group) access to preprocedural CCTA images. In this post hoc analysis, we compared blinded vs unblinded procedures in terms of procedural success defined as complete left atrial appendage occlusion as evaluated at the end of LAAC (short-term) or at the 45-day follow-up (long-term) without procedural-related complications. RESULTS: Among 219 LAACs preceded by CCTA, 92 (42.1%) and 127 (57.9%) were assigned to the CCTA unblinded and blinded group, respectively. After adjusting for confounders, operator unblinding to preprocedural CCTA remained associated with a higher rate of short-term procedural success (93.5% vs 81.1%; P = 0.009; adjusted OR: 2.76; 95% CI: 1.05-7.29; P = 0.040) and long-term procedural success (83.7% vs 72.4%; P = 0.050; adjusted OR: 2.12; 95% CI: 1.03-4.35; P = 0.041). CONCLUSIONS: In a prospective multicenter cohort of clinically indicated echocardiography-guided LAACs, unblinding of the first operators to preprocedural CCTA images was independently associated with a higher rate of both short- and long-term procedural success. Further studies are needed to better evaluate the impact of preprocedural CCTA on clinical outcomes.

Symptomatic vs. non-symptomatic device-related thrombus after LAAC: a sub-analysis from the multicenter EUROC-DRT registry.

BACKGROUND: Device-related thrombus (DRT) after left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) is associated with adverse outcomes, i.e. ischemic stroke or systemic embolism (SE). Data on predictors of stroke/SE in the context of DRT are limited. AIMS: This study aimed to identify predisposing factors for stroke/SE in DRT patients. In addition, the temporal connection of stroke/SE to DRT diagnosis was analyzed. METHODS: The EUROC-DRT registry included 176 patients, in whom DRT after LAAC were diagnosed. Patients with symptomatic DRT, defined as stroke/SE in the context of DRT diagnosis, were compared against patients with non-symptomatic DRT. Baseline characteristics, anti-thrombotic regimens, device position, and timing of stroke/SE were compared. RESULTS: Stroke/SE occurred in 25/176 (14.2%) patients diagnosed with DRT (symptomatic DRT). Stroke/SE occurred after a median of 198 days (IQR 37-558) after LAAC. In 45.8% stroke/SE occurred within one month before/after DRT diagnosis (DRT-related stroke). Patients with symptomatic DRT had lower left ventricular ejection fractions (50.0 ± 9.1% vs. 54.2 ± 11.0%, p = 0.03) and higher rates of non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (84.0% vs. 64.9%, p = 0.06). Other baseline parameters and device positions were not different. Most ischemic events occurred among patients with single antiplatelet therapy (50%), however, stroke/SE was also observed under dual antiplatelet therapy (25%) or oral anticoagulation (20%). CONCLUSION: Stroke/SE are documented in 14.2% and occur both in close temporal relation to the DRT finding and chronologically independently therefrom. Identification of risk factors remains cumbersome, putting all DRT patients at substantial risk for stroke/SE. Further studies are necessary to minimize the risk of DRT and ischemic events.

Clinical and echocardiographic risk factors for device-related thrombus after left atrial appendage closure: an analysis from the multicenter EUROC-DRT registry.

BACKGROUND: Data on Device-related Thrombus (DRT) after left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) remain scarce. This study aimed to investigate risk factors for DRT from centers reporting to the EUROC-DRT registry. METHODS: We included 537 patients (112 with DRT and 425 without DRT) who had undergone LAAC between 12/2008 and 04/2019. Baseline and implantation characteristics, anti-thrombotic treatment and clinical outcomes were compared between both groups in uni- and multivariate analyses. Additional propensity-score matching (PSM) was conducted to focus on the role of implantation characteristics. RESULTS: Patients with DRT showed higher rates of previous stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA) (49.1% vs. 34.7%, p < 0.01), spontaneous echocardiographic contrast (SEC) (44.9% vs. 27.7%, p < 0.01) and lower left atrial appendage (LAA) peak emptying velocity (35.4 ± 18.5 vs. 42.4 ± 18.0 cm/s, p = 0.02). Occluders implanted in DRT patients were larger (25.5 ± 3.8 vs. 24.6 ± 3.5 mm, p = 0.03) and implanted deeper in the LAA (mean depth: 7.6 ± 4.7 vs. 5.7 ± 4.7 mm, p < 0.01). Coverage of the appendage ostium was achieved less often in DRT patients (69.5% vs. 81.5%, p < 0.01), while DRT patients were less frequently on oral anticoagulation (7.1% vs. 16.7%, p < 0.01). Multivariate analysis identified age, prior stroke/TIA and SEC as independent risk factors for DRT. After PSM, implantation depth was found to be predictive. Rates of stroke/TIA were higher in DRT patients (13.5% vs. 3.8%, Hazard Ratio: 4.21 [95%-confidence interval: 1.88-9.49], p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: DRT after LAAC is associated with adverse outcome and appears to be of multifactorial origin, depending on patient characteristics, anticoagulation regimen and device position.

Watchman FLX vs. Watchman 2.5 in a Dual-Center Left Atrial Appendage Closure Cohort: the WATCH-DUAL study.

AIMS: No studies have compared Watchman 2.5 (W2.5) with Watchman FLX (FLX) devices to date. We aimed at comparing the FLX with W2.5 devices with respect to clinical outcomes, left atrial appendage (LAA) sealing properties and device-related thrombus (DRT). METHODS AND RESULTS: All consecutive left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) procedures performed at two European centres between November 2017 and February 2021 were included. Procedure-related complications and net adverse cardiovascular events (NACE) at 6 months after LAAC were recorded. At 45-day computed tomography (CT) follow-up, intra- (IDL) and peri- (PDL) device leak, residual patent neck area (RPNA), and DRT were assessed by a Corelab. Out of 144 LAAC consecutive procedures, 71 and 73 interventions were performed using W2.5 and FLX devices, respectively. There were no differences in terms of procedure-related complications (4.2% vs. 2.7%, P = 0.626). At 45-day CT, the FLX was associated with lower frequency of IDL [21.3% vs. 40.0%; P = 0.032; odds ratio (OR): 0.375; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.160-0.876; P = 0.024], similar rate of PDL (29.5% vs. 42.0%; P = 0.170), and smaller RPNA [6 (0-36) vs. 40 (6-115) mm2; P = 0.001; OR: 0.240; 95% CI: 0.100-0.577; P = 0.001] compared with the W2.5 group. At 45 days, rate of DRT as detected by CT and/or transoesophageal echocardiography (TOE), was higher with W2.5 (6.0% vs. 0%, P = 0.045). At 6-month follow-up, NACE did not differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of consecutive LAACs, FLX as compared to W2.5, was associated with similar procedure-related complications and 6-month NACE, but with improved LAA neck coverage, and lower IDL and DRT.

Amulet or Watchman Device for Percutaneous Left Atrial Appendage Closure: Primary Results of the SWISS-APERO Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: No study has so far compared Amulet with the new Watchman FLX in terms of residual left atrial appendage (LAA) patency or clinical outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous LAA closure. METHODS: In the investigator-initiated SWISS APERO trial (Comparison of Amulet Versus Watchman/FLX Device in Patients Undergoing Left Atrial Appendage Closure), patients undergoing LAA closure were randomly assigned (1:1) open label to receive Amulet or Watchman 2.5 or FLX (Watchman) across 8 European centers. The primary end point was the composite of justified crossover to a nonrandomized device during LAA closure procedure or residual LAA patency detected by cardiac computed tomography angiography (CCTA) at 45 days. The secondary end points included procedural complications, device-related thrombus, peridevice leak at transesophageal echocardiography, and clinical outcomes at 45 days. RESULTS: Between June 2018 and May 2021, 221 patients were randomly assigned to Amulet (111 [50.2%]) or Watchman (110 [49.8%]), of whom 25 (22.7%) patients included before October 2019 received Watchman 2.5, and 85 (77.3%) patients received Watchman FLX. The primary end point was assessable in 205 (92.8%) patients and occurred in 71 (67.6%) patients receiving Amulet and 70 (70.0%) patients receiving Watchman, respectively (risk ratio, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.80-1.16]; P=0.713). A single justified crossover occurred in a patient with Amulet who fulfilled LAA patency criteria at 45-day CCTA. Major procedure-related complications occurred more frequently in the Amulet group (9.0% versus 2.7%; P=0.047) because of more frequent bleeding (7.2% versus 1.8%). At 45 days, the peridevice leak rate at transesophageal echocardiography was higher with Watchman than with Amulet (27.5% versus 13.7%, P=0.020), albeit none was major (ie, >5 mm), whereas device-related thrombus was detected in 1 (0.9%) patient with Amulet and 3 (3.0%) patients with Watchman at CCTA and in 2 (2.1%) and 5 (5.5%) patients at transesophageal echocardiography, respectively. Clinical outcomes at 45 days did not differ between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Amulet was not associated with a lower rate of the composite of crossover or residual LAA patency compared with Watchman at 45-day CCTA. Amulet, however, was associated with lower peridevice leak rates at transesophageal echocardiography, higher procedural complications, and similar clinical outcomes at 45 days compared with Watchman. The clinical relevance of CCTA-detected LAA patency requires further investigation. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT03399851.

Left atrial appendage closure for thrombus trapping: the international, multicentre TRAPEUR registry.

BACKGROUND: Although the presence of a thrombus contraindicates left atrial appendage closure procedure (LAAC), a previous study reported the feasibility of the thrombus trapping procedure (TTP) technique to overcome this limitation. AIMS: This study aimed to analyse the short-term outcomes in a series of patients who underwent LAAC using the TTP (TTP-LAAC). METHODS: This retrospective series included patients who underwent TTP-LAAC between January 2018 and May 2020 in 13 European centres. Device choice, pre-interventional work-up and post-discharge antithrombotic therapy regimens were left to the discretion of the operators. The primary endpoint was the 30-day occurrence of stroke, systemic embolism or cardiovascular death. RESULTS: During the study period, a total of 1,918 patients underwent LAAC. A thrombus was identified in 71 cases but completely disappeared in 24 patients before procedure. TTP-LAAC was finally performed in 53 cases (3%). Thrombi were identified ahead of the actual day of implantation in 47 patients (87%) and were mostly limited in size (50 cases with extension <50% of the LAA surface). The Amplatzer Amulet and WATCHMAN FLX occluders were implanted in 44 and 9 patients, respectively. A single deployment approach was applied in 70% and a cerebral embolic protection system was used in 9% of the patients. The overall success rate was 100%. Small pericardial effusion without tamponade was observed in 6% of the cases. Patients were discharged with 72% under antiplatelet therapy and 10% under short-term oral anticoagulation. The primary endpoint occurred in one patient. CONCLUSIONS: TTP-LAAC might be used in a minority of LAAC procedures but appears to be feasible and safe in the short-term, in select cases.

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.

Safety and feasibility of peri-device leakage closure after LAAO: an international, multicentre collaborative study.

BACKGROUND: Residual peri-device leakage (PDL) is frequent after left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO). Little is known about management strategies, procedural aspects and outcomes of interventional PDL closure. AIMS: The aim of this study was to assess the safety and feasibility of PDL closure after LAAO. METHODS: Fifteen centres contributed data on baseline characteristics, in-hospital and follow-up outcomes of patients who underwent PDL closure after LAAO. Outcomes of interest included acute success and complication rates and long-term efficacy of the procedure. RESULTS: A total of 95 patients were included and a cumulative number of 104 leaks were closed. The majority of PDLs were detected within 90 days (range 41-231). Detachable coils were the most frequent approach (42.3%), followed by the use of the AMPLATZER Vascular Plug II (29.8%) and the AMPLATZER Duct Occluder II (17.3%). Technical success was 100% with 94.2% of devices placed successfully within the first attempt. There were no major complications requiring surgical or transcatheter interventions. During follow-up (96 days [range 49-526]), persistent leaks were found in 18 patients (18.9%), yielding a functional success rate of 82.7%, although PDLs were significantly reduced in size (pre-leak sizemax: 6.1±3.6 mm vs post-leak sizemax: 2.5±1.3 mm, p<0.001). None of the patients had a leak >5 mm. Major adverse events during follow-up occurred in 5 patients (2 ischaemic strokes, 2 intracranial haemorrhages, and 1 major gastrointestinal bleeding). CONCLUSIONS: Several interventional techniques have become available to achieve PDL closure. They are associated with high technical and functional success and low complication rates.

Sex-Based Differences in Bleeding Risk After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and Implications for the Academic Research Consortium High Bleeding Risk Criteria.

Background Female sex was not included among the high bleeding risk (HBR) criteria by the Academic Research Consortium (ARC) as it remains unclear whether it constitutes an HBR condition after percutaneous coronary intervention. We investigated whether female sex associates with HBR and assessed the performance of ARC HBR criteria separately in women and men. Methods and Results Among all consecutive patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention between 2009 and 2018, bleeding occurrences up to 1 year were prospectively collected and centrally adjudicated. All but one of the originally defined ARC HBR criteria were assessed, and the ARC HBR score generated accordingly. Among 16 821 patients, 25.6% were women. Compared with men, women were older and had lower creatinine clearance and hemoglobin values. After adjustment, female sex was independently associated with access-site (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.22-3.74; P=0.008) but not with overall or non-access-site 1-year Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 3 or 5 bleeding. This association remained consistent when the femoral but not the radial approach was chosen. The ARC HBR score discrimination, using the original criteria, was lower among women than men (c-index 0.644 versus 0.688; P=0.048), whereas a revised ARC HBR score, in which age, creatinine clearance, and hemoglobin were modeled as continuous rather than dichotomized variables, performed similarly in both sexes. Conclusions Female sex is an independent predictor for access-site bleeding but not for overall bleeding events at 1 year after percutaneous coronary intervention. The ARC HBR framework shows an overall good performance in both sexes, yet is lower in women than men, attributable to dichotomization of age, creatinine clearance, and hemoglobin values, which are differently distributed between sexes. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02241291.

Impact of clinical presentation on bleeding risk after percutaneous coronary intervention and implications for the ARC-HBR definition.

BACKGROUND: The identification of bleeding risk factors in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is essential to inform subsequent management. Whether clinical presentation per se affects bleeding risk after PCI remains unclear. AIMS: We aimed to assess whether clinical presentation per se predisposes to bleeding in patients undergoing PCI and if the Academic Research Consortium (ARC) High Bleeding Risk (HBR) criteria perform consistently in acute (ACS) and chronic (CCS) coronary syndrome patients. METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing PCI from the Bern PCI Registry were stratified by clinical presentation. Bleeding events at one year were compared in ACS versus CCS patients, and the originally defined ARC-HBR criteria were assessed. RESULTS: Among 16,821 patients, 9,503 (56.5%) presented with ACS. At one year, BARC 3 or 5 bleeding occurred in 4.97% and 3.60% of patients with ACS and CCS, respectively. After adjustment, ACS remained associated with higher BARC 3 or 5 bleeding risk (adjusted HR 1.21, 95% CI: 1.01-1.43; p=0.034), owing to non-access site-related occurrences, which accrued mainly within the first 30 days after PCI. The ARC-HBR score had lower discrimination among ACS compared with CCS patients, and its performance slightly improved when ACS was computed as a minor criterion. CONCLUSIONS: ACS presentation per se predicts one-year major bleeding risk after PCI. The ARC-HBR score discrimination appeared lower in ACS than CCS, and its overall performance improved numerically when ACS was computed as an additional minor risk criterion.

Device-Related Thrombus After Left Atrial Appendage Closure: Data on Thrombus Characteristics, Treatment Strategies, and Clinical Outcomes From the EUROC-DRT-Registry.

BACKGROUND: Left atrial appendage closure is an established therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation. Although device-related thrombosis (DRT) is relatively rare, it is potentially linked to adverse events. As data on DRT characteristics, outcome, and treatment regimen are scarce, we aimed to assess these questions in a multicenter approach. METHODS: One hundred fifty-six patients with the diagnosis of DRT after left atrial appendage closure were included in the multinational EUROC-DRT registry. Baseline characteristics included clinical and echocardiographic data. After inclusion, all patients underwent further clinical and echocardiographic follow-up to assess DRT dynamics, treatment success, and outcome. RESULTS: DRT was detected after a median of 93 days (interquartile range, 54­161 days) with 17.9% being detected >6 months after left atrial appendage closure. Patients with DRT were at high ischemic and bleeding risk (CHA2DS2-VASc 4.5±1.7, HAS-BLED 3.3±1.2) and had nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation (67.3%), previous stroke (53.8%), and spontaneous echo contrast (50.6%). The initial treatment regimens showed comparable resolution rates (antiplatelet monotherapy: 57.1%, dual antiplatelet therapy: 85.7%, vitamin K antagonists: 80.0%, novel oral anticoagulants: 75.0%, and heparin: 68.6%). After intensification or switch of treatment, complete DRT resolution was achieved in 79.5% of patients. Two-year follow-up revealed a high risk of mortality (20.0%) and ischemic stroke (13.8%) in patients with DRT. Patients with incomplete DRT resolution showed numerically higher stroke rates and increased mortality rates (stroke: 17.6% versus 12.3%, P=0.29; mortality: 31.3% versus 13.1%, P=0.05). CONCLUSIONS: A substantial proportion of DRT is detected >6 months after left atrial appendage closure, highlighting the need for imaging follow-up. Patients with DRT appear to be at a high risk for stroke and mortality. While DRT resolution was achieved in most patients, incomplete DRT resolution appeared to identify patients at even higher risk. Optimal DRT diagnostic criteria and treatment regimens are warranted.

Design and Rationale of the Swiss-Apero Randomized Clinical Trial: Comparison of Amplatzer Amulet vs Watchman Device in Patients Undergoing Left Atrial Appendage Closure.

Residual or newly acquired leaks are routinely appraised after left atrial appendage closure (LAAC). The Watchman and the Amulet are the two most frequently used devices for LAAC but no randomized study has so far assessed their comparative leak rates after intervention. The "Comparison of Amplatzer Amulet vs Watchman devices in patients undergoing left atrial appendage closure" (Swiss-Apero, clinicaltrial.gov NCT03399851) is an academic-sponsored multicenter, randomized clinical trial comparing Amulet versus Watchman/FLX devices among patients undergoing a clinically indicated LAAC. The study is designed to assess the superiority of Amulet vs. Watchman/FLX in terms of leaks detected by cardiac computed tomography angiography (CCTA) at 45 days (primary endpoint) and 13 months (secondary endpoint) after intervention by an imaging Core Laboratory. The Swiss-Apero study is the first randomized clinical trial comparing Amulet and Watchman/FLX with respect to the prevalence of post-procedural leak as assessed with CCTA.