Left atrial appendage occlusion in atrial fibrillation patients with previous intracranial bleeding: A national multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) represents the most serious complication of oral anticoagulant therapy (OAT) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), and AF patients with previous ICH are a challenge for clinicians. Left atrial appendage (LAA) occlusion has emerged as an alternative option for AF patients not suitable for OAT. Currently, few data are available on long term outcomes after LAA occlusion in this population. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of LAA occlusion in a cohort of patients with AF and previous ICH. METHODS: This is a multicenter, observational, retrospective study involving 5 LAA occlusion centers in Italy. It includes all consecutive patients (n = 120) with previous ICH who underwent LAA occlusion for nonvalvular AF and high thromboembolic risk. Procedural outcomes, post-procedural therapies and 12-months follow-up data were analyzed. RESULTS: The device was successfully implanted in 100% of cases, with a 6% of major peri-procedural complications. 59% had a prior ICH during OAT. The sample had a high risk of stroke (5.18%/year) and bleeding (6.62%/year). 30% were discharged on single and 54.2% on dual antiplatelet therapy. The expected annual risk for thromboembolism was 5.1%. Excluding periprocedural ischemic complications, the stroke annual rate was 1.8%. The expected annual risk of bleeding was 6.7%. The observed annual bleeding rate was 5.45%. CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous LAA occlusion is an effective option for AF patients and previous intracranial hemorrhage. After LAA occlusion, a single antiplatelet therapy strategy could be considered for patients with the highest risk of recurrent bleeding.

Surgical redo versus transseptal or transapical transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve implantation for failed mitral valve bioprosthesis.

BACKGROUND: Redo surgical mitral valve replacement (SMVR) is the current standard of care for patients with failed bioprosthetic mitral valve (MV). Transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve replacement (TMViV) is arising as an alternative to SMVR in high risk patients. We sought to evaluate procedural safety, early and mid-term outcomes of patients who underwent transseptal TMViV (TS-TMViV), transapical TMViV (TA-TMViV), or redo-SMVR. METHODS: We identified patients with failed bioprosthetic MV who underwent TS-TMViV, TA-TMViV, or SMVR at four Italian Centers. Clinical and echocardiographic data were codified according to Mitral Valve Academic Research Consortium definition (MVARC), except for significant valve stenosis. RESULTS: Between December 2012 and September 27, 2019 patients underwent TS-TMViV, 22 TA-TMViV, and 29 redo-SMVR. TS-TMViV and TA-TMViV patients presented higher mean age and surgical risk scores compared with SMVR group (77.8 ± 12 years, 77.3 ± 7.3 years, 67.8 ± 9.4 years, p < .001; STS PROM 8.5 ± 7.2; 8.9 ± 4.7; 3.6 ± 2.6, p < .001). TS-TMViV procedure was associated with shorter intensive care unit time and total length of stay (LOS) compared with TA-TMViV and SMVR group. There were no differences in MVARC procedural success at 30-days (74.1, 72.7, and 51.7%, p = .15) and one-year all-cause mortality between groups (14.8, 18.2, and 17.2%, p = 1.0). MV mean gradient was similar between TS-TMViV, TA-TMViV, and SMVR groups at 30 days and 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: For the selected patients, TS-TMViV and TA-TMViV are to be considered a valid alternative to redo-SMVR with comparable 1-year survival. TS-TMViV is the less invasive strategy and has the advantage of shortening the LOS compared with TA-TMViV.