Transition from WATCHMAN generation-2.5 device to WATCHMAN FLX device for percutaneous left atrial appendage closure: Incidence and predictors of device-related thrombosis and short- to mid-term outcomes.
WATCHMAN FLX
anticoagulation
atrial fibrillation
device‐related thrombosis
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:
19 Jun 2024
19 Jun 2024
Historique:
revised:
18
04
2024
received:
10
01
2024
accepted:
21
05
2024
medline:
19
6
2024
pubmed:
19
6
2024
entrez:
19
6
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF) not suitable for long-term anticoagulant therapy undergo percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) using the WATCHMAN device. The safety and efficacy of WATCHMAN-FLX (WM-FLX) compared with WATCHMAN-2.5 (WM-2.5), particularly in Asian populations, is unknown. We evaluated the background, procedure, and clinical outcomes of 199 patients who underwent LAAC between September 2019 and December 2022 and compared WM-2.5 (72 patients) with WM-FLX (127 patients). The mean age was 76 years, with 128 men, and 100 had nonparoxysmal AF (non-PAF). The mean CHA WM-FLX significantly improved the procedural quality and safety of LAAC. However, DRT remains an important issue even in the novel LAAC device, being a hazard for patients with high DRT risk, such as having non-PAF and using 35-mm devices.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF) not suitable for long-term anticoagulant therapy undergo percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) using the WATCHMAN device. The safety and efficacy of WATCHMAN-FLX (WM-FLX) compared with WATCHMAN-2.5 (WM-2.5), particularly in Asian populations, is unknown.
METHODS
METHODS
We evaluated the background, procedure, and clinical outcomes of 199 patients who underwent LAAC between September 2019 and December 2022 and compared WM-2.5 (72 patients) with WM-FLX (127 patients).
RESULTS
RESULTS
The mean age was 76 years, with 128 men, and 100 had nonparoxysmal AF (non-PAF). The mean CHA
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
WM-FLX significantly improved the procedural quality and safety of LAAC. However, DRT remains an important issue even in the novel LAAC device, being a hazard for patients with high DRT risk, such as having non-PAF and using 35-mm devices.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Wolf PA, Abbott RD, Kannel WB. Atrial fibrillation as an independent risk factor for stroke: the Framingham Study. Stroke. 1991;22:983‐988.
Blackshear JL, Odell JA. Appendage obliteration to reduce stroke in cardiac surgical patients with atrial fibrillation. Ann Thorac Surg. 1996;61:755‐759.
Hindricks G, Potpara T, Dagres N, et al. ESC guidelines for the diagnosis and management of atrial fibrillation developed in collaboration with the European Association for Cardio‐Thoracic Surgery (EACTS): the task force for the diagnosis and management of atrial fibrillation of the european society of cardiology (ESC) Developed with the special contribution of the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) of the ESC. Eur Heart J. 2020;2021(42):373‐498.
Nogami A, Kurita T, Abe H, et al. JCS/JHRS 2019 guideline on non‐pharmacotherapy of cardiac arrhythmias. Circ J. 2021;85:1104‐1244.
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 Jr., DR, 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. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64:1‐12.
Reddy VY, Doshi SK, Kar S, et al. 5‐year outcomes after left atrial appendage closure. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;70:2964‐2975.
Aonuma K, Yamasaki H, Nakamura M, et al. Percutaneous watchman left atrial appendage closure for Japanese patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation at increased risk of thromboembolism‐first results from the salute trial. Circ J. 2018;82:2946‐2953.
Reddy VY, Gibson DN, Kar S, et al. Post‐approval U.S. experience with left atrial appendage closure for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;69:253‐261.
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.
Kim HK, Tantry US, Smith Jr., SC, et al. The East Asian paradox: an updated position statement on the challenges to the current antithrombotic strategy in patients with cardiovascular disease. Thromb Haemost. 2021;121:422‐432.
Ono S, Kubo S, Maruo T, Kar S, Kadota K. Left atrial appendage size in patients with atrial fibrillation in Japan and the United States. Heart Vessels. 2021;36:277‐284.
Cepas‐Guillén P, Flores‐Umanzor E, Leduc N, et al. Impact of device implant depth after left atrial appendage occlusion. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2023;16:2139‐2149.
Kramer AD, Korsholm K, Jensen JM, et al. Cardiac computed tomography following Watchman FLX implantation: device‐related thrombus or device healing? Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2023;24:250‐259.
Alkhouli M, Alarouri H, Kramer A, et al. Device‐related thrombus after left atrial appendage occlusion. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2023;16:2695‐2707.
Tzikas A, Holmes Jr., DR, Gafoor S, et al. Percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion: the Munich consensus document on definitions, endpoints, and data collection requirements for clinical studies. Europace. 2017;19:4‐15.
Mehran R, Rao SV, Bhatt DL, et al. Standardized bleeding definitions for cardiovascular clinical trials: a consensus report from the bleeding academic research consortium. Circulation. 2011;123:2736‐2747.
Chakravarty T, Leong D, Bhardwaj N, et al. Zero‐contrast percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion with watchman FLX device. JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2023;9:1004‐1005.
Blusztein DI, Gogia S, Hahn RT, et al. Zero‐contrast left atrial appendage occlusion using a hybrid echocardiography‐fluoroscopy technique without iodinated contrast. Am J Cardiol. 2023;198:53‐55.
Okada A, Kubo S, Chatani R, et al. Feasibility of contrast‐free left atrial appendage closure with WATCHMAN FLX device for patients with chronic kidney disease. Cardiovasc Interv Ther. 2024;39:191‐199.
Fukushima T, Fukunaga M, Isotani A, et al. Zero‐contrast left atrial appendage closure in patients with chronic kidney disease. Circ J. 2023;88:170‐174.
Dukkipati SR, Holmes Jr., 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, Busu T, Shah K, Osman M, Alqahtani F, Raybuck B. Incidence and clinical impact of device‐related thrombus following percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion. JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2018;4:1629‐1637.
Dukkipati SR, Kar S, Holmes DR, et al. Device‐related thrombus after left atrial appendage closure: incidence, predictors, and outcomes. Circulation. 2018;138:874‐885.
Simard T, Jung RG, Lehenbauer K, et al. Predictors of device‐related thrombus following percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021;78:297‐313.
Pracon R, Bangalore S, Dzielinska Z, et al. Device thrombosis after percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion is related to patient and procedural characteristics but not to duration of postimplantation dual antiplatelet therapy. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2018;11:e005997.
Vij V, Piayda K, Nelles D, et al. Clinical and echocardiographic risk factors for device‐related thrombus after left atrial appendage closure: an analysis from the multicenter EUROC‐DRT registry. Clin Res Cardiol. 2022;111:1276‐1285.
Della Rocca DG, Magnocavallo M, Di Biase L, et al. Half‐dose direct oral anticoagulation versus standard antithrombotic therapy after left atrial appendage occlusion. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2021;14:2353‐2364.
Saliba WI, Kawai K, Sato Y, et al. Enhanced thromboresistance and endothelialization of a novel fluoropolymer‐coated left atrial appendage closure device. JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2023;9:1555‐1567.