Clinical outcomes of Watchman vs. Amplatzer occluders for left atrial appendage closure (WATCH at LAAC).

Kleinecke, Caroline; Yu, Jiangtao; Neef, Philip; Buffle, Eric; de Marchi, Stefano; Fuerholz, Monika; Nietlispach, Fabian; Valgimigli, Marco; Streit, Samuel R; Fankhauser, Mate; Duenninger, Erich; Windecker, Stephan; Meier, Bernhard; Gloekler, Steffen (2020). Clinical outcomes of Watchman vs. Amplatzer occluders for left atrial appendage closure (WATCH at LAAC). Europace, 22(6), pp. 916-923. Oxford University Press 10.1093/europace/euaa001

[img] Text
Clinical outcomes of Watchman vs. Amplatzer occluders for left atrial appendage closure (WATCH at LAAC).pdf - Published Version
Restricted to registered users only
Available under License Publisher holds Copyright.

Download (459kB) | Request a copy

AIMS

This study compares clinical outcomes of Watchman vs. Amplatzer devices for left atrial appendage closure (LAAC).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Of two real-world registries, the Watchman registry Lichtenfels, Germany, and the Amplatzer registry Bern-Zurich, Switzerland, 303 and 333 consecutive patients, respectively, were included. After a 1:1 propensity score matching, 266 vs. 266 patients were compared by use of the predefined primary efficacy endpoint of stroke, systemic embolism and cardiovascular/unexplained death, the primary safety endpoint of major peri-procedural complications and major bleeding events at follow-up, and the combined hazard endpoint, a composite of all above-mentioned hazards. Mean age was 75.3 ± 7.8 (Watchman) vs. 75.1 ± 9.9 (Amplatzer) years, CHA2DS2-VASc score 4.5 ± 1.7 vs. 4.5 ± 1.5, and HAS-BLED score 3.2 ± 1.0 vs. 3.2 ± 1.0. At a mean follow-up of 2.4 ± 1.3 vs. 2.5 ± 1.5 years and 1.322 patient-years, the primary endpoints of efficacy [40/646, 6.2% [Watchman] vs. 43/676, 6.4% [Amplatzer]; hazard ratio (HR), 1.02; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.66-1.58; P = 0.92] and safety (33/646, 5.1% vs. 30/676, 4.4%; HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.29-1.11; P = 0.10), as well as the combined hazard endpoint (69/646, 10.7% vs. 66/676, 9.8%; HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.55-1.12; P = 0.26) were similar for both groups.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests comparable efficacy and safety of the Watchman and Amplatzer devices.

Item Type:

Journal Article (Original Article)

Division/Institute:

04 Faculty of Medicine > Department of Cardiovascular Disorders (DHGE) > Clinic of Cardiology

UniBE Contributor:

Fürholz, Monika; Valgimigli, Marco; Windecker, Stephan and Meier, Bernhard

Subjects:

600 Technology > 610 Medicine & health

ISSN:

1099-5129

Publisher:

Oxford University Press

Language:

English

Submitter:

Nadia Biscozzo

Date Deposited:

25 Nov 2020 12:03

Last Modified:

25 Nov 2020 12:03

Publisher DOI:

10.1093/europace/euaa001

PubMed ID:

32003774

Uncontrolled Keywords:

Anticoagulation Amplatzer Atrial fibrillation Left atrial appendage closure Stroke prevention Watchman

BORIS DOI:

10.7892/boris.147472

URI:

https://boris.unibe.ch/id/eprint/147472

Actions (login required)

Edit item Edit item
Provide Feedback