Leak closure following left atrial appendage exclusion procedures: A multicenter registry.
Watchman
appendage
leak
septal occluder
Journal
Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions
ISSN: 1522-726X
Titre abrégé: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 100884139
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 2022
05 2022
Historique:
revised:
14
01
2022
received:
19
11
2021
accepted:
18
01
2022
pubmed:
3
3
2022
medline:
18
5
2022
entrez:
2
3
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Though infrequent, incomplete left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) may result from residual leaks. Percutaneous closure has been described though data is limited. We compiled a registry from four centers of patients undergoing percutaneous closure of residual leaks following LAAC via surgical means or with the Watchman device. Leak severity was classified as none (no leak), mild (1-2 mm), moderate (3-4 mm), or severe (≥5 mm). Procedural and clinical success was defined as the elimination of leak or mild residual leak at the conclusion of the procedure or follow-up, respectively. Of 72 (age 72.2 ± 9.2 years; 67% male) patients, 53 had undergone prior LAAC using the Watchman device and 19 patients surgical LAAC. Mean CHADS Percutaneous closure of residual leaks following left atrial appendage closure is feasible and associated with good outcomes. The procedural risk appears to be satisfactory.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Though infrequent, incomplete left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) may result from residual leaks. Percutaneous closure has been described though data is limited.
METHODS
We compiled a registry from four centers of patients undergoing percutaneous closure of residual leaks following LAAC via surgical means or with the Watchman device. Leak severity was classified as none (no leak), mild (1-2 mm), moderate (3-4 mm), or severe (≥5 mm). Procedural and clinical success was defined as the elimination of leak or mild residual leak at the conclusion of the procedure or follow-up, respectively.
RESULTS
Of 72 (age 72.2 ± 9.2 years; 67% male) patients, 53 had undergone prior LAAC using the Watchman device and 19 patients surgical LAAC. Mean CHADS
CONCLUSION
Percutaneous closure of residual leaks following left atrial appendage closure is feasible and associated with good outcomes. The procedural risk appears to be satisfactory.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1867-1876Informations de copyright
© 2022 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Blackshear JL, Odell, JA. Appendage obliteration to reduce stroke in cardiac surgical patients with atrial fibrillation. Ann Thorac Surg. 1996;61:755-759.
Cresti A, Garcia-Fernandez MA, Sievert H, et al. Prevalence of extra-appendage thrombosis in non-valvular atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter in patients undergoing cardioversion: a large transoesophageal echo study. EuroIntervention. 2019;15:e225-e230.
Alkhouli M, Chaker Z, Clemetson E, et al. Incidence, characteristics and management of persistent peri-device flow after percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion. Structural Heart. 2019;3:491-498.
Boersma LV, Schmidt B, Betts TR, et al. Implant success and safety of left atrial appendage closure with the WATCHMAN device: peri-procedural outcomes from the EWOLUTION registry. Eur Heart J. 2016;37:2465-2474.
Nguyen A, Gallet R, Riant E, et al. Peridevice leak after left atrial appendage closure: incidence, risk factors, and clinical impact. Can J Cardiol. 2019;35:405-412.
Viles-Gonzalez JF, Kar S, Douglas P, et al. The clinical impact of incomplete left atrial appendage closure with the Watchman Device in patients with atrial fibrillation: a PROTECT AF (Percutaneous Closure of the Left Atrial Appendage Versus Warfarin Therapy for Prevention of Stroke in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation) substudy. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59:923-929.
Kanderian AS, Gillinov AM, Pettersson GB, Blackstone E, Klein AL. Success of surgical left atrial appendage closure: assessment by transesophageal echocardiography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;52:924-929.
Mohanty S, Gianni C, Trivedi C, et al. Risk of thromboembolic events after percutaneous left atrial appendage ligation in patients with atrial fibrillation: long-term results of a multicenter study. Heart Rhythm. 2020;17:175-181.
Della Rocca DG, Horton RP, Di Biase L, et al. First experience of transcatheter leak occlusion with detachable coils following left atrial appendage closure. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2020;13:306-319.
Ellis CR, Metawee M, Piana RN, Bennett JM, Pretorius M, Deegan RJ. Feasibility of left atrial appendage device closure following chronically failed surgical ligation. Heart Rhythm. 2019;16:12-17.
Ellis CR, Aznaurov SG, Patel NJ, et al. Angiographic efficacy of the atriclip left atrial appendage exclusion device placed by minimally invasive thoracoscopic approach. JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2017;3:1356-1365.
Sleiman JR, Lewis AJ, Perez EJ, et al. Management of peri-device leak following left atrial appendage closure: a systematic review. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2021;121:800.
Lakkireddy D, Thaler D, Ellis CR, et al. Amplatzer™ Amulet™ left atrial appendage occluder versus Watchman™ device for stroke prophylaxis (Amulet IDE): a randomized controlled trial. Circulation. 2021;144:1543-1552.
Alkhouli M, Chaker Z, Mills J, Raybuck B. Double device closure for large or bilobar left atrial appendage anatomy. EuroIntervention. 2020;16:e1039-e1040.
Della Rocca DG, Horton RP, Tarantino N, et al. Use of a novel septal occluder device for left atrial appendage closure in patients with postsurgical and postlariat leaks or anatomies unsuitable for conventional percutaneous occlusion. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2020;13:e009227.
Alkhouli M. Management of peridevice leak after LAAO: coils, plugs, occluders, or better understanding of the problem. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2020;13:320-322.
Kar S, Doshi SK, Sadhu A, et al. Primary outcome evaluation of a next-generation left atrial appendage closure device: results from the Pinnacle FLX trial. Circulation. 2021;143(1754):1762.