Incidence, progression, and predictors of left atrial appendage sealing after Watchman FLX device implantation with computed tomographic assessment.
computed tomography
patency
transcatheter left atrial appendage closure
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:
25 Apr 2024
25 Apr 2024
Historique:
revised:
13
02
2024
received:
26
09
2023
accepted:
31
03
2024
medline:
25
4
2024
pubmed:
25
4
2024
entrez:
25
4
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Limited data exists regarding incidence, progression, and predictors of left atrial appendage (LAA) sealing after transcatheter LAA closure. We aimed to evaluate the incidence, progression, and predictive factors associated with LAA sealing after LAA closure. This study includes patients who underwent successful LAA closure with Watchman FLX device and had both pre- and postprocedural computed tomography (CT). Postprocedural CT was performed 45 days after LAA closure and used to evaluate residual LAA patency. Patient who had residual LAA patency at 45 days underwent 1-year follow-up CT. A total of 105 patients (mean age: 75.2 ± 9.6 years; 53.3% female) who underwent successful LAA closure with Watchman FLX device and had pre- and postprocedural CT at 45 days were included. Residual patency was observed in 35 (33.3%) patients: 21 (20.0%) patients showed complete contrast opacification in LAA (complete LAA patency) while 14 (13.3%) patients showed contrast opacification only in the distal LAA (distal LAA patency). Among patients with residual LAA patency at 45 days, the rate of LAA sealing at 1 year was significantly higher in the distal LAA patency group than in the complete LAA patency group (75.0% vs. 16.7%; p = 0.019). Increased depth oversizing was associated with both distal LAA patency and complete LAA patency. Postprocedural CT at 45 days detected patent LAA in one-third of patients after LAA closure. LAA sealing was more frequently observed at 1 year among the distal LAA patency group than the complete LAA patency group.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Limited data exists regarding incidence, progression, and predictors of left atrial appendage (LAA) sealing after transcatheter LAA closure. We aimed to evaluate the incidence, progression, and predictive factors associated with LAA sealing after LAA closure.
METHODS
METHODS
This study includes patients who underwent successful LAA closure with Watchman FLX device and had both pre- and postprocedural computed tomography (CT). Postprocedural CT was performed 45 days after LAA closure and used to evaluate residual LAA patency. Patient who had residual LAA patency at 45 days underwent 1-year follow-up CT.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 105 patients (mean age: 75.2 ± 9.6 years; 53.3% female) who underwent successful LAA closure with Watchman FLX device and had pre- and postprocedural CT at 45 days were included. Residual patency was observed in 35 (33.3%) patients: 21 (20.0%) patients showed complete contrast opacification in LAA (complete LAA patency) while 14 (13.3%) patients showed contrast opacification only in the distal LAA (distal LAA patency). Among patients with residual LAA patency at 45 days, the rate of LAA sealing at 1 year was significantly higher in the distal LAA patency group than in the complete LAA patency group (75.0% vs. 16.7%; p = 0.019). Increased depth oversizing was associated with both distal LAA patency and complete LAA patency.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Postprocedural CT at 45 days detected patent LAA in one-third of patients after LAA closure. LAA sealing was more frequently observed at 1 year among the distal LAA patency group than the complete LAA patency group.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Holmes DR, Reddy VY, Turi ZG, et al. Percutaneous closure of the left atrial appendage versus warfarin therapy for prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation: a randomised non‐inferiority trial. Lancet. 2009;374:534‐542.
Holmes D, Kar S, Price MJ, et al. Prospective randomized evaluation of the Watchman left atrial appendage closure device in patients with atrial fibrillation versus long‐term warfarin therapy: the PREVAIL trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64(1):1‐12.
Reddy VY, Sievert H, Halperin J, et al. Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure vs warfarin for atrial fibrillation: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2014;312:1988‐1998.
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.
Dukkipati SR, Holmes DR, Doshi SK, et al. Impact of peridevice leak on 5‐year outcomes after left atrial appendage closure. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2022;80:469‐483.
Alkhouli M, Du C, Killu A, et al. Clinical impact of residual leaks following left atrial appendage occlusion. JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2022;8:766‐778.
Banga S, Osman M, Sengupta PP, et al. CT assessment of the left atrial appendage post‐transcatheter occlusion—a systematic review and meta analysis. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2021;15:348‐355.
Galea R, De Marco F, Meneveau N, et al. Amulet or Watchman device for percutaneous left atrial appendage closure: primary results of the Swiss‐APERO randomized clinical trial. Circulation. 2022;145:724‐738.
Wang DD, Eng M, Kupsky D, et al. Application of 3‐dimensional computed tomographic image guidance to WATCHMAN implantation and impact on early operator learning curve single‐center experience. JACC. Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;9:2329‐2340.
So C, Kang G, Villablanca PA, et al. Additive value of preprocedural computed tomography planning versus stand‐alone transesophageal echocardiogram guidance to left atrial appendage occlusion: comparison of real‐world practice. J Am Heart Assoc. 2021;10:e020615.
Galea R, Aminian A, Meneveau N, et al. Impact of preprocedural computed tomography on left atrial appendage closure success: a Swiss‐Apero trial subanalysis. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2023;16:1332‐1343.
Clarke J‐RD, Higgins AY, Wang Y, et al. Impact of preprocedure imaging for left atrial appendage occlusion: insights from the NCDR LAAO Registry. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2023;16:1317‐1328.
Filby SJ, Dallan LAP, Cochet A, et al. Left atrial appendage occlusion using cardiac CT angiography and intracardiac echocardiography: a prospective, single‐center study. J Invasive Cardiol. 2021;33:E851‐E856.
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.
Goitein O, Fink N, Hay I, et al. Cardiac CT angiography (CCTA) predicts left atrial appendage occluder device size and procedure outcome. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2017;33:739‐747.
Di Biase L, Santangeli P, Anselmino M, et al. Does the left atrial appendage morphology correlate with the risk of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation? J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60:531‐538.
Saw J, Fahmy P, DeJong P, et al. Cardiac CT angiography for device surveillance after endovascular left atrial appendage closure. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015;16:1198‐1206.
Meier B, Blaauw Y, Khattab AA, et al. EHRA/EAPCI expert consensus statement on catheter‐based left atrial appendage occlusion. EP Europace. 2014;16:1397‐1416.
Raphael C, Friedman P, Saw J, Pislaru S, Munger T, Holmes D. Residual leaks following percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion: assessment and management implications. EuroIntervention. 2017;13:1218‐1225.
Afzal MR, Gabriels JK, Jackson GG, et al. Temporal changes and clinical implications of delayed peridevice leak following left atrial appendage closure. JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2022;8:15‐25.
Korsholm K, Jensen JM, Nørgaard BL, et al. Peridevice leak following amplatzer left atrial appendage occlusion: cardiac computed tomography classification and clinical outcomes. JACC. Cardiovascular Interv. 2021;14:83‐93.
Qamar S, Jalal S, Nicolaou S, Tsang M, Gilhofer T, Saw J. Comparison of cardiac computed tomography angiography and transoesophageal echocardiography for device surveillance after left atrial appendage closure. EuroIntervention. 2019;15:650‐651.
Qamar SR, Jalal S, Nicolaou S, Tsang M, Gilhofer T, Saw J. Comparison of cardiac computed tomography angiography and transoesophageal echocardiography for device surveillance after left atrial appendage closure. EuroIntervention. 2019;15:663‐670.
Cochet H, Iriart X, Sridi S, et al. Left atrial appendage patency and device‐related thrombus after percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion: a computed tomography study. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2018;19:1351‐1361.
Kar S, Hou D, Jones R, et al. Impact of Watchman and Amplatzer devices on left atrial appendage adjacent structures and healing response in a canine model. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;7:801‐809.
Schwartz RS, Holmes DR, Van Tassel RA, et al. Left atrial appendage obliteration: mechanisms of healing and intracardiac integration. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2010;3:870‐877.